Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Aircraft Orders (Staff)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Supply how many civil servants in his Department are rendered redundant by the decision to allow the British Air Corporations to order aircraft direct from manufacturers instead of through his Department.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Few civil servants are likely to become redundant by the change in procedure. My Department will still be responsible for ordering prototypes and for development generally; and there will be work in connection with aircraft already on order for the Corporations.

Brigadier Rayner: May we take it that the Minister will miss no opportunity to reduce the somewhat swollen and expensive staff of his Department?

Mr. Strauss: I do not accept that the staff of my Department is swollen, but we are always careful to see there is no redundancy.

Stores Disposal Mission,Egypt

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply what is the approximate quantity and value of the stores awaiting disposal by the British Stores Disposal Mission in Egypt.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: About 10,000 tons of stores and 1,500 vehicles are in process of disposal. Further considerable tonnages are expected to be declared surplus during the year. It is not possible to estimate their sale value in advance.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply what were the numbers and grades

of the British personnel employed by the British Stores Disposal Mission in Egypt on 1st January, 1949.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Erroll: Is the reduction entirely due to the smaller quantity of stores now awaiting disposal or has some redundancy been discovered?

Mr. Strauss: There is still a substantial amount of stores for disposal, but the amount is decreasing a little and we have been able to reduce the staff.

Following is the answer:

On 1st January, 1949, 235 British personnel, including 142 recruited locally, were employed in Egypt in the following grades:—


Director General
…
1


Senior Executives
…
20


Executive and Supervisory
…
52


Clerical, typing, etc.
…
76


Storeholding grades
…
86




235

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Premises, Whitby (Rent)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Works the amount of rent paid by his Department for 23, St. Hilda's Terrace. Whitby.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): It is not the practice of the Ministry to disclose the rents paid for premises.

Mr. Spearman: Can the Minister give some assurance that there is no truth in the local report that his Department pays over £400 a year for this house, the gross rateable value of which is £70 and which changed hands recently at £2,600?

Mr. Key: The figure being paid for this house is perhaps a little more than normal because of the conditions under which it was taken, but I cannot give the facts.

Richmond Park (Roads)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works whether he will now permit the use by motor traffic of the roads in Richmond Park.

Mr. Key: All except four of the roads in Richmond Park are now open to motor traffic. I hope to re-open the roads from Roehampton Gate to Richmond and Robin Hood Gates as soon as cultivation ceases in the park, or deer can be prevented from breaking into the crops. For the time being the use of the roads from Ham Cross to Robin Hood Gate and Sheen Cross is confined to cyclists, pedestrians and horses.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when the various conditions which he mentioned will be satisfied and the remaining roads re-opened?

Mr. Key: I think probably the use of the park for cultivation purposes may end in a year to 18 months' time.

Weald Stone, Harrow Weald

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Works whether he will consider scheduling, under the provisions of the Acts relating to ancient monuments, the mark stone, known as the Weald Stone, in the High Street, Harrow Weald, in view of its unprotected position and historic significance to Harrow.

Mr. Key: The stone to which my hon. Friend refers appears to be a natural boulder, with no sign of human workmanship. It may, however, have been used as a boundary mark in medieval and later times. I feel that its protection by local effort would be more appropriate than scheduling under the Ancient Monuments Acts.

Mr. Skinnard: Does the scheduling under these Acts depend on the definition of monuments? Will my right hon. Friend ask his Department to have another look at this, as there are distinct signs of monumental workmanship?

Mr. Key: I should be prepared to consider any evidence with regard to monumental workmanship, but it is not my function to preserve natural objects.

Government Offices

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Works why the combined London office of the potato and carrot division has been moved from Imperial House, Kingsway, to Mayfair Court, Stratton Street; and what is the cost to the taxpayer of this move.

Mr. Key: The move of this office of the Ministry of Food from Imperial House to Mayfair Court will enable us to release for private use part of Imperial House now held on requisition. The cost of the move was £20.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the best service he could render to the public would be to refuse office accommodation for the continuation of this farcical work of the potato and carrot division of the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Key: No Sir, I am not aware of that. My function is to provide the accommodation required by other Departments.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Works how many buildings are under construction in the Manchester area for use as Government offices; and how this compares with the number and size of buildings licensed by him in the same area for construction as private offices.

Mr. Key: Four buildings, of which three are temporary, are under construction in the Manchester area and will provide Government office accommodation of about 236,000 sq. ft., and a further four, providing about 22,000 sq. ft., have been completed—a total of some 258,000 sq. ft. This compares with four buildings, including damaged buildings now being reconstructed, which have been licensed for construction as private offices with an area of office space of about 207,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that this vast extension of Government office space in the Manchester area will cause great concern to the Manchester business community, who are so desperately short of suitable office accommodation?

Mr. Key: On the contrary, it should be very welcome to the people in Manchester, because these new offices are required mainly for releasing requisitioned premises.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of what will be the accommodation in the requisitioned premises which these completed Government buildings will release for use by private firms?

Mr. Key: As we shall be able to bring together separated departments I should think it quite likely that more space will be released as a result of the new Government building than will be provided in the new buildings.

Maintenance Workers (Redundancy)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Works how many Government office maintenance workers are being threatened with redundancy; and, in view of the fact that private firms are employed to do much of the work in Government buildings, whether he will consider retaining these workers and employing them on carrying out the work done by outside firms.

Mr. Key: I assume that the hon. Member refers to engineering maintenance workers in the Inner London area. The number of redundant men will depend on the rate of progress in releasing requisitioned premises, and I cannot give an exact figure. The number of men at present affected is about 130, but it may increase. It is normal practice to do routine engineering maintenance by direct labour. Direct labour is also employed on urgent works of repair and adaptation whenever its use would make for economy and speed, but I cannot authorise work to be done by direct labour merely for the sake of avoiding redundancy. I have, however, reviewed the arrangements for deciding which jobs should be done by contract and which by direct labour, and I am hopeful that in consequence the size of the redundancy problem will be lessened.

Palace of Westminster

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works to what extent he is responsible for the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Key: My Department provides all the maintenance services, and their cost is charged to the Civil Estimates, Class VII.

Building Apprentices

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Minister of Works what special steps have been taken to review apprenticeship in the building industry.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. The Building Apprenticeship and Training Council, al my request, has recently considered in detail certain problems that have arisen in connection with the recruitment of apprentices in the building industry. The Council has submitted to me two Reports entitled "Building Apprenticeship: Recruitment and Training" and "Recruitment of Masons," and these Reports were published by His Majesty's Stationery Office this morning. I am most grateful to the Council and I hope that all concerned with the well-being of the industry will study the reports carefully.
In so far as the Council's recommendations affect my own Department exclusively, I am in complete sympathy with them and will take steps to give effect to them. As regards the other recommendations, I am consulting those of my colleagues who are affected with a view to decisions being given as soon as possible.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that youth employment officers in some areas are having great difficulty in placing boys who want to be apprenticed in the building trade because of the reluctance of employers to train them? Will these reports indicate that this problem will be dealt with?

Mr. Key: I think these reports will help considerably in that respect, and I have also been taking up with the building industry the question of the further taking on boys in this work.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that building apprentices in Scotland are being called up for military service though they are much more needed on their jobs, and will he make representations to his colleagues to stop this?

Mr. Key: That is another subject altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (SOVIET REPLY)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the U.S.S.R. to the British note, stating that all German prisoners of war have been released and inquiring whether the U.S.S.R. had done the same.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): The Soviet Government's reply to this note was communicated to His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow on 25th January. The full text of the reply has not yet reached the Foreign Office.

Brigadier Rayner: Does not all the evidence available to the British, French and American Governments go to show that over 200,000 German prisoners of war are still on Soviet territory?

Mr. McNeil: I should think that that is a conservative statement.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a Blue Book with photographs in it showing the physical condition of the German prisoners of war returned by the Russians?

Mr. McNeil: We are still hopeful that the Soviet Government may prove reasonable upon this subject, although their first reaction has not been of that kind. I should not like to commit myself at this stage to the suggestion that we should publish photographs of these prisoners. I agree, however, that their physical condition—and their age in many cases—has been most regrettable.

Mr. Marlowe: If the right hon. Gentleman has not yet the full text, could he indicate to the House generally the nature of the answer which has been received?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, it is not untypical. It contests the accuracy of our statement, it makes some counter accusations, completely without foundation, and declines to enter into negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LECTURE TOURS)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that visits abroad by hon. Members, for the purpose of giving lectures under the auspices of his Department, involve no charge upon public funds.

Mr. McNeil: No fees are payable out of public funds to hon. Members who lecture abroad under Foreign Office auspices, but their expenses are covered in the same way as the expenses of other

speakers, not Members of this House, who undertake lecture tours abroad at the request of the Foreign Office. Such expenses have been paid on behalf of one hon. Member who lectured in France, and for five who lectured in the U.S.A. These latter five were sponsored by the British-American Parliamentary Group.

Sr J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the receipt of such allowances does not technically disqualify those hon. Members from sitting and voting in this House as holders of offices of profit under the Crown, or, alternatively, as contractors to the Foreign Office?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, that is the type of question which in normal circumstances I would advise the hon. Gentleman to put to the Law Officers, but I think I should say, in view of the gravity of the matter, that they are not in receipt of offices of profit or of contracts with the Foreign Office. For example, in the case of hon. Members lecturing in the United States, those tours are sponsored by the British-American Parliamentary Group.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not clear that these are not offices of any kind. much less offices of profit?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the expenses given to these members of Parliament in America are quite insufficient to meet their needs?

Mr. McNeil: That has been my own sad and protracted experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECTS, EGYPT

Mr. Orbach: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the efforts he has made to secure the release of British citizens interned by the Egyptian authorities.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. Twenty-one British subjects have been arrested and detained by the Egyptian authorities since martial law was declared in Egypt on 15th May last. Representations have been frequently made on this subject by His Majesty's Embassy in


Cairo to the Egyptian authoritites, and I also took the opportunity recently in Paris to bring to the attention of the Egyptian Foreign Minister the grave concern of His Majesty's Government at the detention of British subjects without any specific charge being presented against them. Twelve of those interned have been released but nine are still in detention.

Mr. Orbach: Will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend whether, in the negotiations which are proceeding at Rhodes, he will make the strongest possible representations to both sides, in the hope of getting the release of all British subjects?

Mr. McNeil: I am doubtful about our status in the Rhodes talks, but I do assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to press this subject, and, indeed, His Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to make further and forcible representations himself.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Have these gentlemen United Kingdom nationality, or the nationality of some other part of the Empire?

Mr. McNeil: The men whom we are discussing are subjects of His Majesty.

Mr. Frank Byers: How does it come about that we continue to give military assistance to the Egyptians while they are, in fact, detaining British citizens?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (DACE CASE)

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why there has been a six months' delay in forwarding the Recours in the Dace case to the Commission des Graces in Paris; and when action will be taken.

Mr. McNeil: I have carefully examined this question and I cannot agree that there has been delay on the part of His Majesty's Government. Further copies of the relevant documents are being provided for the French authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (PETROL)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what petrol ration is allowed to civilians in

the British zone of Germany; and what was the total quantity of petrol issued for this purpose in 1948.

Mr. McNeil: There is no petrol ration in the British zone, as the term is understood in this country. The total amount of petrol placed at the disposal of the German economy by the Occupying Powers is allocated by the bizonal German authorities to the Land Administrations, by them to the Kreis authorities and by these in turn to individual Germans, ostensibly for essential purposes only. In 1948 German civil consumption of petrol in the British zone was approximately 306,000 tons.

Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement by the Regional Commissioner on 21st January that the German population were wasting petrol on luxury motoring, and is he satisfied that the regulations for the issue of petrol are sufficiently stringent and that there is no widespread evasion on the black market; and if he is not, should not steps be taken to reduce supplies of petrol to these German authorities?

Mr. McNeil: I am satisfied that there is no widespread evasion, but I cannot pretend that we are quite satisfied with the position. My hon. Friend is in process of making a further investigation upon this subject, which will not necessarily be followed by further decree or regulation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to tell the House that German civilians are not rationed for petrol, whereas British civilians are?

Mr. McNeil: I meant to make it quite plain that German civilians are in a much worse category. I need not apologise for that. They have no ration or entitlement to a ration, as we understand it. They are permitted petrol only for certain specific and licensed purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE MEAT DELIVERIES

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the nature of the representations which he has made to the Argentine Government in view of the threatened delay in


deliveries of meat to Great Britain due under contract between his Department and the Argentine Government.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has had a number of interviews with the Argentine Ambassador, at which he has emphasised the serious view which His Majesty's Government take of the prospective shortfall of meat deliveries from Argentina under the Andes Agreement. In addition, His Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires has almost continuously urged on the Argentine Government the need for increasing current deliveries and this, in response to our representations, the Argentine Government have undertaken to do.

Mr. Marlowe: Has the right hon. Gentleman made representations to the effect that if this bargain is not kept, we reserve the right to repudiate any bargain made in relation to Argentine railways, and if not, why not?

Mrs. Leah Manning: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any easing of the position with regard to the Andes Agreement since the fall of Senor Miranda?

Mr. McNeil: I suppose that I should reply to one section of these supplementary questions but perhaps my hon. Friend would put down a question on the arithmetical one to the Minister of Food.

Mr. Marlowe: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the first question? Have any representations on this matter been made?

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have made the most severe and direct representations, but I should like notice of any detailed question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

International Wheat Agreement

Mrs. Manning: asked the Minister of Food if he will now take the initiative in reviewing the International Wheat Agreement which was abrogated by the U.S. Government in the last Congress.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): A Conference is at present being

held in Washington to negotiate an International Wheat Agreement. The Conference is attended by representatives of the Governments of all the principal wheat exporting and importing countries. including the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Manning: Could my right hon. Friend tell me whether it is going to take very long to bring into being again this extremely valuable co-operation?

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot say how long it will be, but, of course, the first job will be to review the abortive 1948 agreement.

Italian Cauliflowers

Mr. Beechman: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to stop the importation of Italian cauliflowers, which, without any advantage to consumers, endangers a home industry which has been officially encouraged.

Dr. Summerskill: The retail price of cauliflowers is substantially above what it was a year ago and during the past few days there has been a rise in wholesale prices. I cannot therefore accept the hon. Member's contentions.

Brigadier Rayner: Is the hon. Lady aware that the district of Kingsbridge in South Devon produces the best broccoli in this country, that we could provide it for the public much cheaper and fresher than the Italians can, and that we cannot now sell all that we grow?

Commander Agnew: Is the Minister aware that the Devon and Cornish producers cannot play their full part in the drive for more British food, and neither can they give full employment to workers in the industry unless the restrictive clauses in the Geneva Tariff Agreement are revised, so as to permit higher duties on supplies of foreign imported broccoli, and would the Minister consult the President of the Board of Trade with a view to early action?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman surely cannot be aware of the facts. The duty plus freight charges on Italian cauliflowers amount to 17s. 6d. per cwt., whereas the freight charge on cauliflowers from the West of England is 3s. 3d.

Carrots

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what was the average cost price to his Department, including expenses, of the carrots his Department offered for stockfeed in a letter dated 12th January, 1949, at 56s. 6d. per ton delivered loose, or 64s. per ton in 1 cwt. sacks.

Dr. Summerskill: The average cost of these carrots, bought to implement the guarantee to growers, is £9 5s. per ton loose, and £9 12s. 6d. in sacks.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of these figures, may I ask the right hon. Lady how much longer is the Ministry of Food going to be allowed to gamble at the taxpayers' expense, and would it not be better if all these attempts to control carrots and potatoes were left to the growers, the distributors, the public and the housewives?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has a very short memory. Perhaps he has forgotten that it was not my right hon. Friend who introduced this guarantee; it was introduced at the beginning of the war when we realised that the

The quantities of soft fruits imported into the United Kingdom in each of the months April October, 1948 inclusive, were as follows:


In tons




April
May
June
July
August
September
October


Gooseberries
…
—
15
393
2
—
—
—


Strawberries
…
38
488
1,237
2
4
1
—


Currants
…
—
—
46
642
25
34
50


Bilberries
…
—
—
283
1,591
643
164
18


Raspberries and Loganberries
…
—
—
5
—
—
—
—


Total
…
38
503
1,964
2,237
672
199
68


Note.—Soft fruits of other kinds than those shown above (e.g. blackberries) are not separately enumerated in the Trade Returns.

Potato Exports (Spain)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food how many applications by his Department to export a part of this season's potato crops to Spain have been refused; and for what reason.

Dr. Summerskill: None, Sir.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there was a considerable crop of potatoes exported to Spain before the war, that recently a Spanish merchant

supply of commodities, containing vitamin A, was short, and so found it necessary to give a guarantee to the producers. As these commodities are still in short supply, we consider that the guarantee should continue.

Soft Fruit Imports

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Food to state, in categories, the quantities of soft fruit imported monthly during last season for direct consumption.

Dr. Summerskill: It is impossible to distinguish imports for direct consumption from those for manufacture and processing. As the answer includes a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Lady help us by saying whether it is likely that this season there will be more or less imports of fruit than there were last season?

Dr. Summerskill: That depends upon the weather.

Following is the information:

of the name of Matutano has been in this country endeavouring to get exports of potatoes from this country, and will she say why the Board of Trade have stopped exports?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little confused. He is mistaking seed potatoes for ware potatoes. Ware potatoes are sold by my Department, and we made a competitive quotation to Spain when they asked us for about 70,000 tons of ware potatoes.


So far as seed potatoes are concerned, we have exported all that Spain has asked for.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Lady realise that Spain has obtained the seed potatoes she is talking about from Holland, and that they will grow crops of potatoes from those seeds which will be imported into this country through her Ministry?

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know the facts. If he will have a word with me afterwards, I will tell them to him.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food to what extent the present crop of Royal Kidney potatoes, grown in the Wisbech area, is being or has been exported to Spain, as has been the long-established custom; or what is being done with this season's crop.

Dr. Summerskill: The customary export to Spain from the Wisbech area is of Royal Kidney seed potatoes and although these are private trade transactions, from the information available, it appears that most, if not all, the Royal Kidney seed grown in this area will be exported to Spain.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that the export of seed potatoes from the Wash ports has been stopped by the Board of Trade?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong. We have sponsored all the licences of the potatoes which are going to Spain.

Retail Allocations

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Food whether he has now devised a scheme for a recasting of the basis of allocation to traders of supplies now regulated by the datum year 1938 in view of the hardship inflicted on new entrants to the food trades by the present system which confers a quasi-monopoly on those traders already established.

Dr. Summerskill: No one method can replace the datum system of allocation, but over a wide range of activities it has already come to an end. My Department is examining a number of schemes with trades still subject to this procedure.

Mr. Oliver: Will my right hon. Friend consider the point that, with regard to the 1938 allocation, many of the men not in the trade who desire to go into the food trade were still at school in 1938, and if trade supplies are to be regulated by that Order, the position becomes almost absurd.

Dr. Summerskill: I think that my right hon. Friend and I have often explained to the House that we are not satisfied with this method of allocation, but my hon. Friend must realise that while certain foods are in short supply there is no alternative.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is it not the case that the trade is opposed to a system whereby unrationed food can be supplied to traders according to their registrations for registered food; and would not such a system overcome a good deal of the inequality which now exists?

Dr. Summerskill: I expect my hon. Friend remembers that only two or three months ago we did tie many of the pointed foods which housewives need, to registrations.

Linseed

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the fact that supplies of linseed are obtainable from Canada at a lower price than from other sources from which we are obtaining supplies, he will make further endeavours to purchase this Canadian linseed and thus help to satisfy the need at the present time for increased supplies.

Dr. Summerskill: Unfortunately the dollar shortage prevents us from buying Canadian linseed.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that linseed is the greatest asset in increasing milk production and is of vital necessity throughout the country for cattle feedingstuffs and other uses; and why not buy the linseed instead of some of the other things that we are buying today? Linseed should be priority No. 1. Why not do something about it?

Dr. Summerskill: I am aware that the country would like more linseed, but the hon. Gentleman has forgotten one very important point: that America has declared linseed a surplus commodity, and that therefore we shall not be allowed to buy it from Canada with E.R.P. dollars.

Mr. De la Bèere: Then is it not possible to get an alteration, in view of the vital need of this country for linseed? Surely we are not to continue with this sort of thing indefinitely. We shall never recover if we continue under the handicap this treatment places on us.

Distribution (Hygiene)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the handling, distribution and storage of foodstuffs for sale to the public in shops, restaurants and cafes, he will confer with the Minister of Health with a view to giving guidance for the hygienic handling of all foodstuffs from producer to consumer.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) and St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) on Monday, 24th January.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that that reply did not satisfy them, and that it does not satisfy me; and could not she give a little more thought to this all-important matter.

Dr. Summerskill: I am always thinking about it.

Unrationed Sweets

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food if he will make arrangements, similar to those in force for bananas, to ensure that small children will have priority in securing unrationed sweets at lower prices.

Dr. Summerskill: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion and will bear it in mind. but I hope it will not be necessary.

Mr. Freeman: If my right hon. Friend finds that it is necessary, will she take steps to ensure that children have priority for unrationed sweets?

Dr. Summerskill: We shall certainly consider it when the time comes.

Sugar

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the improved sources of supply of sugar throughout the world, he will consider taking sugar off the ration altogether, especially having regard to the shortages of meat and bacon from the present ration.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend would be delighted to do this if we had enough sugar.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Minister aware that there is no shortage of sugar throughout the world; if the Dutch people can have sugar off the ration, although they have to spend hard currency the same as ourselves, why cannot we in this country have it off the ration? Are we never to have anything sweet from this Government?

Mr. George Ward: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is really no difference in taste between sugar and saccharin?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Food if he will authorise an allowance of sugar for tea to editorial and office workers when they are working on their newspapers.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir, not until sugar for tea can he made available to all workers, and we cannot do that at present.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that sugar is already provided, quite properly, to the mechanical side of newspaper staffs; and as the amount involved is very small cannot she go the whole way and give it to everybody?

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think the hon. Member has realised that the energy output factor enters into this. If newspaper office workers are to have it I see no reason why civil servants should not have it. At the moment there is not enough sugar for everybody.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not a fact that any newspaper office, or any other type of office, which runs a canteen is entitled to sugar for tea?

Dr. Summerskill: If a canteen is run. certainly.

Mr. Lipson: In her original reply was the right hon. Lady suggesting that inadequate energy is used on editorial staffs in newspaper offices?

Dr. Summerskill: It is mental energy as opposed to physical energy.

Mr. De la Bère: There is no sugar shortage at all.

Overseas Gift Parcels

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of Food whether any overseas food parcels have recently been sent to old age pensioners in the Brixworth Rural District; and when they will have some.

Dr. Summerskill: Brixworth Rural District receives its share, and in fact, a distribution is in progress of a gift of cooking fat from the New Zealand Patriotic Fund, Wellington. The members of the local council, in conjunction with representatives of the churches and welfare organisations, decide who shall receive a share of this gift, but my hon. and learned Friend may rest assured that the old age pensioners will be very much in their minds.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Lighting

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the inadequate lighting of streets in the Metropolitan Police area is helping criminals and making the work of the police more difficult; and if he will consult with the Minister of Fuel and Power with a view to arranging for full normal lighting to be restored immediately.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The views of the police are taken into account in applying any necessary restrictions on street lighting. The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that street lighting this winter was improved from 50 to 75 per cent. of the pre-war level, and I am in touch with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Fuel and Power on the question.

Brigadier Medlicott: Are we to understand from that answer that the police do not recommend improved lighting where it is possible.

Mr. Barnes: I should not like to say that; but while they may be in favour we have to take other matters into consideration.

Signposting

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to improve signposting upon roads for the benefit of long-distance traffic.

Mr. Barnes: The signposting of trunk roads is being brought up to an adequate standard as rapidly as possible. Local highway authorities are responsible for the signposting of other roads and are assisted by grants from my Department in respect of signs on classified roads. I have encouraged them to improve their signposting in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, whose report was published in 1946. New signs are being put up at the rate of about 50,000 a year. During the past two years about 50 comprehensive route indication schemes have been prepared, and many of these are now in operation.

Speed Limit, Caernarvonshire

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport why a sign indicating the 30 mile per hour speed limit has not yet been placed at either approach to the village of Morfa Bychan. near Portmadoc, Caernarvonshire.

Mr. Barnes: No speed limit is in force here. The initiative rests with the Caernarvonshire County Council, who will no doubt submit an order for my consideration if they think it necessary.

Passenger Undertakings, Scotland (Acquisition)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what arrangements have now been made for the transfer to public ownership of bus companies in Scotland.

Mr. Barnes: The British Transport Commission have now acquired the important road passenger undertakings in Scotland of the Scottish Motor Traction group of companies in which they formerly had a part interest as successors to the railway companies.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What price has been paid? Does the Minister think it is reasonable?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member cares to put a Question down, and it is passed by the Table, I will give it consideration.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the long time that was taken to complete this negotiation and of what appears to be the high price that has been paid for the acquisition of this concern, will the


Minister consider ceasing to acquire bus companies by negotiation and proceed by making passenger area schemes, and acquire, where necessary, by compulsion?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. This process is a much quicker way of realising the objects of the nationalisation Act than the procedure of area schemes.

Mr. Davies: Is it not more expensive?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (COMMUNISTS)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Prime Minister why civil servants removed from employment in one Department on the ground of alleged Communist activities are offered employment in another Department.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Government's aim is not to exclude such people from the Civil Service but only to ensure that they are not employed on secret work. In some cases transfer to another Department is either the only or the most convenient means of offering the alternative employment I promised in my statement of 15th March, 1948.

Sir J. Mellor: But why are many of these unwanted Communists dumped on the Ministry of Education? Is not that another fruitful field for their malicious activities?

The Prime Minister: I have not any information about this alleged dumping, but it obviously cannot be very many because last week in the House I gave the figures of the transfers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Prime Minister whether he will advise that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Death Penalty be extended to cover the method of execution.

The Prime Minister: Although the terms of reference do not expressly refer to the method of execution I do not think that it would be outside the competence of the Royal Commission to consider this aspect of the question, and I propose to ask the Commission to include this

matter in their deliberations. I understand that the Chairman-designate would not object.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the publication of a 6,000-word document issued by the Communist Party calling on the workers to take action to sabotage industrial recovery and inciting to disaffection, he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission, on the lines of the Un-American Activities Committee of Congress, to report on the extent and nature of Communist organisations and their subversive activities in Britain.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: When can this House and the public be made aware of whether the Prime Minister really means business about attacking Communism? Is it not obvious that he is doubly prisoner, to the T.U.C. and his own Left wing? When will he be master in his own house?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) has recently been having sleepless nights because he has discovered a plot in the ranks of the Boy Scouts; and what is being done to stop this insidious plot to undermine the British Empire?

Oral Answers to Questions — C.O.I. LECTURE SERVICE

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will reinstate the United Nations in the list of subjects covered by the C.O.I.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I presume my hon. Friend refers to the list of subjects covered by the C.O.I. lecture service. For the reasons I gave in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) on 10th March last, I do not think that Government expenditure on lectures on the United Nations would be justified.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this excision from the list of lectures has caused very great anxiety to the United Nations' Association in this


country who feel that this of all subjects is one about which the Government should sponsor lectures?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are many new subjects cropping up, and if we are to add all the new subjects to all the old subjects we shall have an increasing bill as we go along. There must be a limit to expenditure on these services.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is not this really a question of dominating importance; and does not the fact that this country is one of the principal members of the United Nations lay on it some responsibility for making known the work of the United Nations?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I do not agree. All subjects are of dominating importance according to the circumstances of the time, but we must have some discrimination, otherwise we shall merely go on adding and adding, and the limits to public expenditure, which are reasonable, will be exceeded.

Mr. David Renton: Is it not a fact that the Central Office of Information is already trying to do too much, and is not doing any of it properly? Would it not be better to comb out its activities, and confine them to really essential matters?

Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with the first part of the question. I fully agree with the latter part, and that is what I am doing.

Mrs. Florence Paton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the stopping of this lecture is not evidence of the fact that the British Government have lost faith in the United Nations?

Mr. Morrison: No, not at all. One must not be abstract and slogan-minded. It is not essential that lectures on the United Nations should go on for ever at the public expense merely in order to show that we believe in the United Nations. One must have a sense of relativity about these matters.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he looks through the list of subjects included in this lecture list, he will find a great many which can be excluded for better reasons than this one.

which is of the greatest importance to the people of this country?

Mr. Morrison: That is exactly what all the other people are claiming for their subjects.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not cut out the whole lot?

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. (INQUIRY)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Lord President of the Council if the forthcoming inquiry into the B.B.C. prior to the renewal of the B.B.C. Charter at the end of 1950 will be an open inquiry so that the public may hear the evidence which is given; and if he can now say who will be the Chairman.

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend is mistaken in suggesting that the existing B.B.C. Charter expires at the end of 1950; it actually runs until 31st December, 1951. It will be for the Committee of Inquiry itself to determine its procedure. I am glad to be able to tell the House that Sir Cyril Radcliffe, K.C., has agreed to be Chairman. The investigation will not begin for some time and the other members will be announced in due course.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the private inquiry conducted by the B.B.C. under Sir Valentine Holmes two years ago—which did so little in putting things right inside the B.B.C.—indicated the unsuitability of private inquiries; and will he suggest to the B.B.C. or whoever the appropriate authority is for this new inquiry that it be held in public so as to allay public suspicion that it will be little more effective than the first one?

Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's state of mind, which I think is unfortunate. The last Committee in 1935 was private, and I see no reason to change that procedure.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the increasing Left-wing tendency of all broadcasts will the Lord President of the Council back up the Prime Minister in his Communist purge and be sure that this inquiry is held in public?

Mr. Morrison: There are as many allegations that the B.B.C. is Right wing


as there are that it is Left wing, and I would not take the hon. Member as an impartial judge.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Smallholdings

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for smallholdings, approved by the county councils in England and Wales, are outstanding; and if he is now able to authorise the councils to provide new holdings for experienced farm workers.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): There are some 3,000 approved applications for smallholdings in the hands of county and county borough councils in England and Wales. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on 24th January.

Mr. Hurd: While the Minister is awaiting the report of his Advisory Committee, could he have inquiries made to see how much land being farmed through the county committees would be suitable for smallholdings and can be released?

Mr. Williams: We might look at this problem once the Committee's report is in my hands, which will be in a few days.

Major Legge-Bourke: How many of these 3,000 applications also involve applications for houses as well as holdings?

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for smallholdings, approved by the Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils, are outstanding; and what plans he has in hand to assist county councils in their endeavours to provide more smallholdings at an early date.

Mr. T. Williams: The numbers of approved applications for smallholdings in the hands of these county councils are: Norfolk, 461; West Suffolk, nil; East Suffolk, 12. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on 24th January.

River Board Areas

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to announce the formation of river boards areas.

Mr. T. Williams: A draft order defining a river board area for the existing catchment are of the River Severn is in preparation. As regards other parts of the country, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I await the views of the River Board Areas Consultative Committee. The Committee is at present in consultation with the local interests mainly concerned as to the alternative area boundaries which might be adopted, and will make recommendations in the light of the local views thus obtained.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that the Consultative Committee has been provided with the Minister's proposals for boundaries, and does he not think that the general public are also interested in this matter and should be given a chance to express their views?

Mr. Williams: That is exactly why these consultations are going on strictly in accordance with the terms of the Act, under which the local associations and interested persons must be consulted before areas are finally defined. If it is of any interest to the hon. Member, I can assure him that the Nene and Welland Catchment Boards are amongst the boards which have now been consulted.

Onions

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department was consulted by the Minister of Food in connection with the agreement with Holland concerning imports of onions; and what steps were taken to consult onion growers in this country.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave on 24th January to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), and the reply which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave on 20th January to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd).

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman do something about the


Evesham growers, who are in a desperate position, because they are not able to dispose of their onions, a large part of which are deteriorating? It is a very important matter. Can I have a reply?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member insists upon an answer, I will give him the only one that can be given—when in 1947 agreements were entered into for the importation of onions, the growers in this country agreed. The same acreage was dealt with in 1949, and when it was announced in this House in March by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, there was no reaction on the part of the producers.

Hill Farming Schemes

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications have been submitted for grants for improvement schemes under the Hill Farming Act in Devonshire; what are the separate figures out of that total for Exmoor; and how many schemes have received his Department's approval for work to commence in respect of the above.

Mr. T. Williams: Thirty-one proposals for improvement schemes under the Hill Farming Act in Devonshire have been received, of which 22 relate to farms in the Exmoor district. Twelve of these proposals, including 11 in the Exmoor area, have been approved in principle, but no detailed schemes have so far been submited and no authority for work to begin has yet been given.

Brigadier Peto: Can the Minister say why it is that no work has yet been approved or no permission given to start the work? Is it on account of the complexity of the schemes or the difficulties of making the application?

Mr. Williams: I suppose many of these schemes are highly complicated, and in the first place some sort of scheme is sent in for examination. When the final report comes from the Ministry's county agricultural executive committees, then the final detailed scheme is submitted. As fast as the detailed schemes are submitted, approval is given by my Department.

Proposed Reservoir, Hanningfield

Mrs. Manning: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the proposal to flood many areas of valuable agricultural land at Hanningfield in Essex for the purpose of making a reservoir; that the scheme can only be of temporary value for a local water supply; and what steps he is taking for the conservation of first class agricultural land in view of the four-year plan and further long-distance plans for the expansion of agriculture in this country.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that the construction of a reservoir at Hanningfield is being considered by the South Essex and Southend Water Companies. If proposals are formally submitted by the water companies to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, my Department will be consulted and the scheme will be carefully examined from the agricultural point of view. Meanwhile preliminary inquiries are being made by my Department about the likely effect of such a scheme. In reply to the last part of the Question, there are administrative arrangements under which my Department is consulted on all important development proposals in order that full weight can be given to the agricultural considerations involved.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when a water company sets out to try to discover where there is water available, it will try to find the cheapest way of getting the water, and the question of the value of the agricultural land does not come into it? At what point is my right hon. Friend consulted?

Mr. Williams: As I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health would always consult my Department before any decisions are taken. wherever they may be.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his Department and the agricultural interests generally are consulted early enough in the process, and can he say what alternative sites in Essex for this reservoir have been considered?

Mr. Williams: The latter part of the supplementary question is totally different from the one on the Order Paper. In


reply to the first part of the supplementary, it is true that the Ministry of Agriculture have every opportunity of stating their case on agricultural grounds—

Mr. Driberg: Early enough?

Mr. Williams: Yes, early enough. A project of this kind will be subject to the statutory procedure laid down in the Water Act involving full publicity and the holding of a public inquiry.

Mrs. Manning: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that this case is one of the clearest examples of the necessity for an over-all water policy and plan in this country?

Mr. Williams: I should not attempt to deny it.

New Town, Bracknell

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) what advice was tendered to his Department by the land utilisation officer in respect of the draft designation order for the new town at Bracknell;
(2) upon what date the last Ministry of Agriculture survey was carried out by his Department on farm land in the Bracknell area for the purposes of classification;
(3) why the Berkshire A.E.C. were not consulted before the draft designation order for the new town at Bracknell was made.

Mr. T. Williams: The Abercrombie Plan for Greater London recommended the creation of a new town in the neighbourhood of White Waltham. My Department strongly objected to this proposal on account of the high agricultural value of the land, and in 1946, interdepartmental consideration was given to possible alternative sites in the same region which would be less damaging to agricultural interests. A special investigation was then carried out by the Ministry's technical officers, and the only site found which met this requirement and was also suitable on general planning grounds was one centred on Bracknell. The designation order was drafted in the light of this investigation, and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act there will be opportunity for a local public inquiry. It will not be

appropriate for the county agricultural executive committee, who are my agents, to take part in the inquiry, but they have received a copy of the designation order and have at my invitation given me their views which will be taken into account when my Department is consulted again by the Minister of Town and Country Planning after the public inquiry, and before a final decision is reached.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the area affected by the draft designation order is yielding crops well above the national average, that more than 36 agricultural holdings are involved, and that the area is producing annually about 125,000 gallons of milk and 860 tons of corn? Can he tell the House from what source his Department derives information as to local conditions in any given area where agricultural interests are involved, if it is not from agricultural executive committees, before any such draft designation is agreed upon?

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Member is aware, I spend at least one-third of my life resisting encroachments upon agricultural land. If it does not happen to be a new town, it is water, and if it is not water it is perhaps the Army or the Air Force, or somebody else. That is one of the prices that we have to pay for this continued development. With regard to information on agricultural values of land out in the country, as the hon. Member will be aware there are land commissioners in each area and we have recently established a technical land service, and both of those sources are available to give what information they can to the Minister of Agriculture.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that cases of this kind make the rural community despair of the sincerity of the Government in asking for increased food production? Although the Minister says that the Berkshire Agricultural Executive Committee cannot themselves intervene in this case, will he give an assurance that he will watch the case carefully?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, certainly, in the light of information I receive from county agricultural committees in the areas designated.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister telling us that this site at Bracknell is one which his officials chose as doing least damage to food production in that area?

Mr. Williams: My Department resisted the suggested for a new town at White Waltham, where it was felt that the agricultural land was of the highest possible value. Therefore, alternative sites had to be looked at. This site at Bracknell is one of the alternatives, but the public inquiry will ultimately determine, if a new town must be laid out somewhere, whether this is the right spot.

Brigadier Head: Can the Minister assure the House that the loss in terms of food production is less than it would have been if the site had remained at White Waltham.

Mr. Williams: That is the advice of my technical advisers out in the country.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Will the Minister give an assurance that the land utilisation officer personally visited both the sites selected and the alternatives before he made his report?

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that my land commissioner visited both and all the alternative sites that have been suggested.

Mr. York: Has the Minister's Department pressed upon the authorities responsible for the new town alternative sites near Bracknell, where the agricultural land value is very small?

Mr. Williams: I have already indicated to the hon. Member and to the House that my Department's technical officers have visited all the alternative areas. We protested against the White Waltham site because of its first-class agricultural land. I understand that among the alternatives that have been recommended the agricultural land is not nearly so valuable as the land at White Waltham.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman protested against the site at White Waltham and that that has been abandoned, and in view of the further fact that the Bracknell site is being proceeded with, can the Minister assure the House that he will protest in regard to the Bracknell site?

Mr. Williams: If there must be a new town somewhere within that region, we

can only protest against the absorption of the best agricultural land within the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to encourage the recruitment of agricultural workers, he will consider giving new entrants a trial period in which they are not subject to the Control of Engagement Order and can leave the occupation if they wish.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir. The present arrangements are very flexible and, I think, adequate. New entrants to agriculture are not held to it by the order until agriculture has become their normal occupation, and I see no advantage in prescribing a fixed trial period of three months.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY, ABERDEEN

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate and report on the sudden and serious diminution in work at Tullos Factory, Limited, Aberdeen, which makes agricultural and other machinery; and what immediate steps he is taking to remedy it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has inquired into the position and he is informed that the reduction in work at the factory of Tullos Ltd., Aberdeen, arises in connection with re-organisation measures, and is expected to be of a temporary nature.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this factory produces machinery which is badly required for home use and for export, and that the diminution in working is completely inexplicable and is inflicting great hardship upon the people who have been dismissed? Will he take steps to see that these people are immediately reinstated in their employment?

Mr. Robertson: The position is being watched very carefully. Only one-third of the employees have been temporarily suspended.

Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that this factory was originally in possession of the Ministry and was trnsferred to private enterprise, would the Minister look into the finance involved in the transaction?

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Minister said that only a small number of people are temporarily unemployed, but 100 have been dismissed and the position is a serious one for them and their wives and families, as well as for the production of machinery in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHING RATION

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am now able to inform the House of the decisions I have reached after consultation with my two Advisory Committees for the next period of clothes rationing. I am not yet in a position to abolish it altogether. As a result of increased production, supplies of clothing have improved but public buying has increased also. Some though not all those with knowledge of the trade predict that this increased buying is seasonal and that demand will fall off. It may be so, but I am not prepared to gamble on it. Textile production is rising but exports are rising too, at a more rapid rate, and in some important types of cloth the diversion to export has meant that supplies for the home market have been considerably lower than a year ago. To maintain and increase exports must remain the first objective of our policy.
At the same time, while some serious shortages remain, there are certain sections of the trade where supplies are more abundant. I propose, therefore, to make a major relaxation. Broadly speaking, wool cloth is in good supply, and I have decided to remove from the ration all woven wool cloth (except gaberdines and certain utility cloths for infants' wear, both of which are scarce), and all garments made from such cloths. Knitting wool and knitted garments, however, will stay on the ration. Thus the articles removed include practically all suits, jackets, trousers, overcoats, costumes and woven wool dresses. Special arrangements will be made for clothing manufacturers to get their linings for these garments coupon-free. Secondly, fur garments,

which have not been selling so well lately, will be downpointed to about half their present level.
In addition I am making two minor changes. The first allows some additional cloths to be used for making the low-pointed industrial overalls, which will do a little to relieve the shortage there. The second takes off the ration some old stocks of utility linen sheets, no longer being made, which are not selling.
These changes come into force tomorrow and the necessary Orders will be laid this afternoon.
I do not propose to make any further changes for the present, but I shall be including certain technical adjustments in a new Order consolidating the various Consumer Rationing Orders, which will be made later this month.
The changes I have just announced, together with the removal of footwear and the other changes made last year, mean that we have now got rid of rationing over about half the field in the past few months. I propose, therefore, that the number of coupons to be issued on 1st March next will be 17—that is all the coupons left in the existing clothing ration book. This compares with 24 for the current period, but with the narrowing of the field of rationing the value of this issue and of the balance of coupons in the hands of the public is increased; the coupon purchasing power in the hands of the public will be bigger than in the present and previous periods. Meanwhile I shall, with the help of my two Advisory Committees, continue to keep the situation closely under review. It is, of course, the Government's policy to remove clothes rationing as soon as it is safe to do so, but I am satisfied that that position has not yet been reached. In the meantime I am sure that the relaxations I have announced today will considerably help the public and traders, and that they mark one more dividend from the nation's increased production.

Captain Crookshank: While it is rather difficult rapidly to appreciate the full extent of all these changes, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can hold out any further hopes at all soon about relaxing the rationing system for household and domestic articles and goods? All he referred to was certain kinds of sheets which were no longer


being made and could not be sold anyhow. That does not seem very much of a concession to the housewife in that field. Can he give any indication that there will be an improvement soon?

Mr. Wilson: There is no single part of the rationing field from which I would have been more glad to remove rationing than household textiles. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that of all the goods which are in short supply at the present time, the sheets, together with the shirtings and certain other cotton goods, are those which are giving us most anxiety, but I can assure him that we shall keep the whole situation, not only as regards household textiles but all the other items in the rationing field, under very close review, and as soon as it is possible to make any further relaxations, we shall certainly do so.

Mr. Butcher: While not minimising the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask him whether he will endeavour to remove as speedily as possible the rationing system for the clothing of children under the age of, say, 14?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I examined very carefully—and took the advice of my Advisory Committees—the question whether, if a big field were to be removed from the rationing system, that could be done, but there were insuperable objections to doing it that way, and I have therefore taken the whole of the woollen cloth field out of the system.

Mr. Chetwynd: While I welcome the extensive concessions which my right hon. Friend has announced, will he ensure that rationing by price will not replace rationing by coupons?

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware—we all are—that the prices of clothing and household textiles at present are extremely high and are, for a very large section of the public, imposing their own rationing. That is, of course, entirely due to the extremely high cost of the imported raw materials.

Captain Crookshank: And the Purchase Tax.

Mr. Drayson: Do I understand that woollen socks and stockings are not included in the relaxation, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman look at that matter again very closely because it is important, especially in winter time, when people want to make increased purchases?

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman can find any socks and stockings made of woven woollen cloth, he will get them free. of coupons. However, he is quite right. Garments made of knitted wool are not being taken off the ration because the position of knitting wool and woollen yarn still gives some anxiety.

Mr. Drayson: Surely the first part of the Minister's reply does not apply?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the orders on hand of the silk manufacturers are becoming steadily less, and will he say what his intentions are as far as this matter is concerned?

Mr. Wilson: I will watch the position in regard to silk very carefully in common with all the other items.

Mrs. Middleton: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in those classes of goods which are to be derationed, he will retain the utility ranges for the people who cannot afford the high prices for non-utility garments?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, I am at present trying to make available from the trade, increased proportions of utility garments.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: In view of the fact that all woollen textiles with the exception of gaberdines have been removed from rationing, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether mixtures of wool and cotton or cotton and rayon in the textile field are affected?

Mr. Wilson: We looked into that matter carefully but we had to confine the relaxation to wool.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No.1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 74.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[3.41 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ganley, Mrs. C S
Orbach, M


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Gibson, C W
Palmer, A. M F


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Parker, J.


Attewell, H C
Granviile, E (Eye)
Paton, Mrs. F(Rushcliffe)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Grierson, E
Paton, J (Norwich)


Austin, H. Lewis
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Pearson, A


Ayles, W H
Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)
Peart, T. F


Bacon, Miss A
Gunter, R J
Piratin, P.


Balfour, A
Guy, W H
Popplewell, E


Barnes, Rt Hon A J
Hamilton, Lieut Col. R
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Barstow, P G
Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Randall, H. E.


Barton, C
Hardman, D. R.
Reid, T (Swindon)


Battley, J R
Harris, H Wilson (Cambridge Univ)
Rhodes, H


Berry, H
Harrison. J.
Robens, A.


Beswick, F.
Haworth, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bing, G. H. C
Henderson, Rt Hn A (Kingswinford)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Binns, J
Hicks, G
Rogers, G. H. R


Blackburn, A. R
Holman, P
Royle, C


Blenkinsop, A
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Sargood, R.


Blyton, W. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Sharp, Granville


Boardman, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)
Shurmer, P.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Skeffington, A. M


Bowen, R.
Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Skinnard, F. W


Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hutchinson, H. L (Rusholme)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)
Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)


Bramall, E. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Snow, J. W


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir Frank


Brown, George (Belper)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Summerskill, Dr Rt Hon


Brown, T. J. (lnce)
Jay, D P T
Swingler, S.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jeger, G (Winchester)
Sylvester, G. O


Burden, T. W.
Jenkins, R. H
Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)


Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)


Byers, Frank
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Callaghan, James
Kendall, W D
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Castle, Mrs. B A
Key, Rt. Hon. C W
Thurtle, Ernest


Chamberlain, R. A
Kinley, J
Titterington, M. F


Champion, A. J.
Lavers, S
Tolley, L


Chetwynd, G R
Lawson, Rt Hon. J. J
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Cluse, W. S
Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Cocks, F. S
Lipson. D. L
Vernon, Maj W. F


Cooper, G.
Longden, F
Viant, S. P


Cove, W. G
McAdam, W
Walkden, E


Daines, P.
Mack, J D.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Warbey, W. N


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McLeavy, F
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon, John (Edinb'gh. E.)


Davies, R J (Westhoughton)
Mann, Mrs. J
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Deer, G.
Manning, Mrs L (Epping)
Willey, F T (Sunderland)


Dodds, N, N
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Driberg, T E. N.
Mathers, Rt. Hon George
Williams, R. W (Wigan)


Dumpleton, C.W
Mayhew C. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Dye, S
Middleton, Mrs L.
Williams, W R (Heston)


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Willis, E.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mitchison, G R
Willis, Mrs. E. A


Edwards, Rt. Hon N. (Caerphilly)
Moody, A S.
Wilison, Rt Hon J H


Evans, Albert (Islington W.)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Woods, G. S


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Yates, V F


Ewart, R
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Moyle, A



Foot, M M.
Naylor, T. E
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.


Gaitskell,Rt. Hon H. T N
Oliver. G H





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr P G
Digby, S. W
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Dodds-Parker, A D
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J


Beechman, N. A
Dower, Col. A V G (Penrith)
Hurd, A.


Birch, Nigel
Drayson, G C
Jeffreys, General Sir G


Bossom, A. C
Drewe, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W


Bower, N.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Keeling, E H


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr E L
Lambert, Hon G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Gates, Maj E E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Glyn, Sir R
Lennox-Boyd, A T


Butcher, H. W
Grimston, R V.
Linstead, H. N.


Challen, C.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon H. F.C
Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col O E
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V
Macdonald, Sir P.(I. of Wight)


Cuthbert, W. N
Head, Brig. A, H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


De la Bère, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Manningham-Buller, R. E.







Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rayner, Brig R.
Studholme, H G.


Marsden, Capt. A.
Renton, D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Robinson, Roland
Thorneycroft, G E P. (Monmouth)


Medlicott, Brigadier F
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Touche, G. C.


Mellor, Sir J.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Watt, Sir G. S Harvie


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
York, C.


Nicholson, G
Smithers, Sir W.
Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick)


Odey, G. W
Spearman, A. C. M.



Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ponsonby, Col. C E.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Major Conant and


Raikes, H. V
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Colonel Wheatley.

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL ROADS BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3, line 18 and page 4, line 7; Clause 7, page 8, line 8, page 8, line 9 (first Amendment), page 8, line 9 (second Amendment), page 8, line 21 and page 8, line 23; and Clause 10, page 11, line 19, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Barnes. —[Mr. Barnes.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary orders relating to special roads.)

3.47 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, after "construction," to insert "or improvement."
This is really a drafting Amendment. The powers conferred on a special road authority in Clause 3 (1, c) namely, to stop up or divert, etc., side roads, now applies only in the case of construction. This Amendment will apply them to a case where there is an improvement of a side road in connection with a special road. which will be an advantage.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: We think this Amendment is a thoroughly sound one. More particularly in view of the next Amendment on the Order Paper, it is desirable that the question of improvement should be dealt with as well as that of construction, and we think it will improve the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert:
before the highway is stopped up; and no order providing for the appropriation by or transfer to the special road authority of an existing road comprised in the route prescribed by a scheme under this Act shall be made or confirmed as aforesaid unless the Minister is satisfied that a reasonably convenient alternative route is available for traffic other than traffic of the class authorised by the scheme, or will be provided in pursuance of an order under this Section before the date on which the appropriation of transfer takes effect, or unless in the case of any such traffic he is satisfied that such an alternative route is not reasonably required.

Hon. Members will recollect that during the Committee stage I undertook to look into the problems of providing alternative routes in the event of existing routes being stopped up and, in particular, the question of an existing all-purpose road which might be incorporated into a special road. The Amendment covers both points. An obligation is placed upon the Minister, before stopping up takes place, so that he cannot approve or confirm a stopping-up order until he is satisfied that an alternative route is provided. In the case of a section of an existing all-purpose road which is incorporated into a special road, the Minister must be satisfied that a reasonable alternative route is available. The third point represents an exception, in that it gives the Minister discretionary power not to provide an alternative route in the case of, for example, a green track if he does not consider it advisable to do so. Obviously, if a green track over which only a few motor vehicles have been passing becomes a special road, the cost or expense of providing an alternative route would be out of the question. Discretion is left to the Minister accordingly.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I should like to thank the Minister for conceding, after consideration, this point which was urged upon him during Committee stage. Undoubtedly there was a serious gap in the provisions of the Bill to the extent that, prior to the insertion of this Amendment, a man might awake one morning to find that the road he had been accustomed to using outside his premises had suddenly become a special road and was restricted to a special form of traffic which might disastrously exclude him from using it.

Mr. Barnes: We do not do things quite like that.

Mr. Thorneycroft: We felt that some alternative route should be provided for an unfortunate individual of that kind. The Amendment goes a long way to meet the points which we raised in Committee. I am glad to see that some concession has also been made on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) of providing an alternative route before stopping-up takes place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Private rights of access.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, to leave out from first "to," to "provide."
I should be glad of your guidance, Mr. Bowles, as I understand that this Amendment is related to that in page 11, line 19, of Clause 10, and is consequential if the latter is agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): I think it would meet the convenience of the Committee if both Amendments were discussed together.

Mr. Barnes: This is a matter concerning the acquisition of land. It may be necessary, in order to provide access, to acquire merely a strip of land. Clause 10 deals with the acquisition of land in connection with any work that may be required to be carried out. Both these Amendments provide the additional flexibility to meet the case where it may be necessary to acquire merely sufficient land for the provision of access, in which no works need be necessarily involved. It is desirable to make provision for an eventuality of this kind.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, after "any," to insert "such."
This Amendment and the three which follow all hang together. Perhaps, therefore, it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with them together. These Amendments are designed to meet points which were raised during Committee. I should, however, say to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) that in meeting these points I am not necessarily agreeing that provision is not already made in the Bill. Our purpose is to clarify and to remove any doubt.
The effect of the Amendments is to widen the powers for the provision of alternative access. They widen also the compensation provisions where a user of access is limited by restrictions on the use of a special road. They provide for compensation for disturbance—not already provided for—caused by the stopping up or limitation on the use of a special road. Where such a road is provided it is possible that private access might be rendered ineffective merely by the restrictions on the classes of traffic permitted to use the road. This point is

dealt with in the first Amendment. The Amendments to lines 21 and 23 widen the basis of compensation to include disturbance. Hitherto it was confined merely to depreciation. I was asked during Committee whether the words "any persons" covered tenants as well as owners of property. I have been satisfied that they do include both.

Colonel Dower: The only question I wish to ask the Minister concerns compensation. I should like an assurance about the basis on which it is to be paid. Will it be for loss actually sustained or for loss which is likely to be incurred? It is difficult to know how it can be properly ascertained.

Mr. Barnes: There is a long-standing practice about negotiations for compensation for disturbance, depreciation or acquisition of properties of value. Very often it takes the form of supplying alternative properties or facilities as the case may be. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, from a very long experience, that the compensation procedure will be no different here from that applicable in the case of trunk roads. It is seldom that any grievance or complaint of this kind reaches any magnitude. The general desire is to give full compensation value, generally by seeing that any facilities which are interfered with are replaced to the full.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I should like once again to thank the Minister for meeting the points put forward from this side. It is important, if provision is to be made for the building of special roads which will obviously damage the interests of individuals, that not only should provision be made for compensation but that it should manifestly include the various classes of damage likely to be suffered by the various types of people affected. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in inserting Amendments, even if merely for clarification, and we think that they go some way to meeting our wishes on the question of compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

4.0 p.m.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 9, after "any," insert "such"

In line 9, leave out from "premises," to "as," in line 12.

In page 8, leave out line 21, and insert:
(2) Where access to any premises has been stopped up in pursuance of an order made by virtue of this section or is limited by virtue of the restrictions imposed under this Act on the use of the special road, and any person has suffered damage in consequence thereof by the depreciation of any interest in the premises to which he is entitled or by being disturbed in his enjoyment of the premises, he.
In line 23, leave out from the first "of," to the end of line 25, and insert "that damage."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Additional powers of acquiring land for special roads.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 19, leave out from "the" to "an," and insert "purposes of."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Schemes for provision of special roads.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(4) Before making or confirming a scheme under this Section the Minister shall give due consideration to the requirements of local and national planning, including the requirements of agriculture.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) moved a similar Amendment in Committee and expressed the view that I might like to have an opportunity of deciding whether it would be best to insert such an Amendment.

Mr. David Renton: I wish to know how the Minister intends to implement this Clause. I am grateful, as I am sure the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is, to the Minister for moving this Amendment, but one hoped that there would be reference to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, possibly, to the local authority as far as planning is concerned, and to consultations with the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the requirements of agriculture. Perhaps the Minister will

enlighten us on how he is to get the necessary consultations?

Mr. Barnes: It is very undesirable to place in an Act of Parliament an obligation on a Minister to consult another Minister. That is departmental practice and the insertion of the words with regard to national planning and agriculture will give those Departments a definite status on those issues. That was the purpose for which the Amendment was moved. It is quite unnecessary to put in the Ministers concerned, because this is normal departmental practice and constitutionally it is undesirable to include those words.

Mr. Keeling: I do not press for any addition to the words of the Amendment which, I think, are quite satisfactory. However, I should like the Minister to add to the assurance he has given that other Government Departments will be consulted. Will he give an assurance that local planning authorities will be consulted and also recognise amenity societies such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking. I am not disposed in this case virtually to commit myself to consulting all kinds of bodies. The Amendment indicates the general intention and the practice is a sufficient safeguard.

Mr. Keeling: What about the local planning authority?

Amendment agreed to

CLAUSE 4.—(Restriction on laying of mains, etc., in special roads.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out from "conferred," to "by."
Clause 4 deals with the restrictions on the laying of mains, etc., under the special roads and, as at present drafted, it gives certain rights to statutory undertakers. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) moved an Amendment in similar terms to this and pointed out that there are certain people other than statutory undertakers who may have apparatus of one kind and another under the road, and if the Clause is restricted as at present those people, private persons or whoever they may be, will not have the benefits of the Clause.
By the proviso in Subsection (1) a statutory undertaker can repair existing apparatus. There is something to be said for not having everyone digging up the roads, but there must be a safeguard enabling repairs to be done to existing apparatus. The Clause also provides that a charge shall not be made against the undertakers and gives the special road authority power to make a contribution, and in Subsection (4) there is provision in regard to arbitration. These conditions are restricted to the statutory undertaker and I should like the Minister to say why no one else with apparatus over which a special road is constructed should have the same rights as the statutory undertaker.

Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): We had a short discussion on this on the Committee stage. At first sight, there seems to be something in the point, but, if the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) will consider it again, he will probably agree that the expression "statutory undertaker" gives certain rights enabling him to break up highways for the purpose of apparatus, but I am not quite sure who else possesses those rights other than a statutory undertaker. There are, of course, many people, especially in country areas, who have drains of some sort under a road which may well be affected by these provisions. They are not statutory undertakers and in so far as their rights would be affected by a special motor roads scheme, the injury done to them would be dealt with in exactly the same way as regards severance and compensation as injury done in the matter of altering their fences, ditches or whatever it may be.
They are in precisely the same legal position. It is for that reason that the words set out in line 2 have been included in this way. It is not from any desire to make a person whose rights may be affected any less able to secure redress than is a statutory undertaker. It is a question of rights in the matter of injuries. Affection and severance are dealt with, as are injuries in connection with fencing, ditching or whatever it may be. For those reasons, I would ask the

hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I do not quite follow the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation. He has said that we do not need to protect people other than statutory undertakers because they are already protected. If that is so, why do we need to protect statutory undertakers? It seems to me that either people other than statutory undertakers are not to get protection under the Bill and that statutory undertakers must, therefore, get protection, or else the hon. Member is right in his contention, and that if statutory undertakers require protection, so do other people who may be affected. As the Government were reminded by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) during the Committee stage, there are a great many water schemes which are most valuable to agriculture and which, if we are not careful, we shall find are interfered with by this Measure without any protection. I would ask the Government to look at this matter still further.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: By leave of the House, I desire to put a further point to the Parliamentary Secretary. He has rather missed the point which I made. We are not here concerned with compensation made to some private person for severance or depreciation. What will happen here is that a road will be driven across what is virtually virgin territory. Underneath the road will inevitably be all sorts of apparatus—water pipes, water schemes, etc.—which it is rather important should remain. It may be that in the first instance a water pipe may be too near the surface and has to be pulled up and relaid, or something of that kind. Exactly the same thing would happen in that case as in the case of a statutory undertaker.
If we are to deal with that sort of thing, it should be dealt with in this Clause. The other Clauses to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred are rather off the point and contain nothing particularly relevant to the matter which we are now discussing. Would the Minister have another look at this question? He will have another opportunity in another place to see whether something can be done about it. If he finds that there is nothing in the point,


no doubt the Minister can explain that later. I should like him to look at the matter again and see whether, in the case of interference with a private scheme for water supply or something of that sort, the necessary arrangements exist to see that the interests of whoever is concerned are safeguarded.

Mr. Callaghan: If I may, by leave of the House reply, I should say that we all desire to achieve what the hon. Member has said in the spirit in which he has said it. My right hon. Friend authorises me to say that if there is any deficiency in the existing Clause we will certainly examine it again. The laying of apparatus by a private undertaker which is done by virtue of the fact that he is the owner or occupier of the land in question, or has obtained a licence to use the land, gives him no right to break up the highway, and he commits an offence if he does so. He can tunnel under the highway so long as he does not cause the highway to subside, provided that it is dedicated, that is, that the authority has not taken over the subsoil. It is the practice of authorities however to take over the full conveyance rather than a dedication of the surface.
4.15 p.m.
Where that is so the private undertaker has to get the consent of the highway authority to the making of any tunnel under the new road. I am advised that that is the position. I am told that if private mains are already laid in land which the highway authority wishes to acquire for a new road, there will have to be a settlement with the owner in exactly the same way as when a highway authority at the present time widens a road. As I said, we are satisfied that the position is fully covered. I repeat that if there is any further point involved we gladly undertake to look at it again between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, in order to give the hon. Member the satisfaction he desires.

Colonel Dower: I know of certain cases in Cumberland where water is conveyed under a road to a farmland. I can think of half a dozen roads under which there are such pipes. Will those cases be covered in some way?

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that that is all right.

Mr. Thorneycroft: In view of the assurance which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out from the beginning, to "and," and to insert "unreasonably."
I will not take up much time in moving this Amendment as I see that the right hon. Gentleman has down an Amendment in somewhat similar terms: in page 5, line 22, to leave out "reasons for," and to insert "circumstances justifying them in." The point concerns the terms under which the special road authority shall be permitted to withhold their consent. The Clause, as it stands, reads:
shall not withhold their consent under this section unless there are special reasons for doing so;
If those words were allowed to remain in that form, and a case went to arbitration, the only thing which the arbitrator would be allowed to discuss was whether there were special reasons or not. The point is not whether there are special reasons but whether the reasons are such as would impel a reasonable man to take that particular course. We thought it right to include the word "unreasonably." The Minister suggests in his Amendment the words "circumstances justifying them in."
I am a somewhat rusty lawyer and I do not intend to split hairs as to which of the two forms of words should be put into the Bill, but in the ordinary course of events the word "unreasonably" is fairly well understood in British law, and it might be better to stick to what is generally put into statutes of this kind rather than invent some particular form of words which some judge might find means something different from "reasonably." However, I leave that to the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me that our Amendment is better than that of the Minister. Our Amendment omits one of the words which caused difficulty, namely "special," which the Minister's Amendment would retain. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment also suffers from the further


vice that not only does it retain the word "special," which is not defined in this connection in the definition Clause, though it is defined in other connections; it also brings in a new conception which is a little difficult to construe, "justifying them in."
I have no idea what are the special circumstances "justifying them in." The word "justifying" would suggest to lawyers looking up some Statute giving the rights, or searching for such a Statute. The general conception of "reasonable" or "unreasonable" is, I think, something which every court or tribunal in this land is perfectly experienced in dealing with. But the word that causes difficulty is "special" which the Amendment sees fit to retain. I think that the Amendment has the further vice of bringing in further words which will cause difficulties. I would ask the Minister carefully to consider whether the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is not better than the Amendment which he and his advisers are suggesting.

Mr. Callaghan: We have had, on his own account, one "rusty lawyer." We have also had one polished lawyer. Now, Mr. Speaker, you have someone who is not a lawyer, and you can imagine with what trepidation I enter on waters such as these. I can conceive of one further advantage to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman which ours has not got and that is that it uses fewer words which always seems to me to be something of a help. Apart from that, I feel that our form of Amendment is preferable, even though the words are longer and more numerous.
I am wondering whether it is not a fact that, if there is inserted in a particular subsection of a Clause that some one should not withhold his consent unreasonably, it might be implied that in other circumstances he might withhold his consent unreasonably. There is a difference of opinion. Some hon. Members seem to be shaking their heads and saying "No"; others seem to feel that there is. I am told that in another place there are many eminent lawyers, and I am wondering whether they could, solve this problem for us when it gets there, and in the meantime we could retain our own words.

Mr. Renton: Surely we should try to get this Bill in as good trim as possible before it goes to another place, instead of revealing our apparent indecision by failing to decide the matter for ourselves. I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary does not accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friends. It seems to me, and here I speak as a lawyer of very uncertain calibre, that by inserting our Amendment the Government will be taking somewhat broader powers than by inserting their own. The words "reasonable" and "unreasonable" connote something very broad indeed. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) has pointed out, "circumstances justifying" may give rise in the mind of some eminent judicial authority the feeling that those words were not inserted unless Parliament had a very special reason for doing so, and they would start trying to find a special reason. In trying to find that special reason they might very well limit the powers of the Government. I am sure that the Government would not wish that, and therefore I suggest that this Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The response of the Parliamentary Secretary is novel in suggesting that this House should leave the matter as it is, to be resolved in another place. I hope that this new view of the Government as to the functions of this House and of the other place will constitute a precedent which will be followed when other Bills. now under consideration upstairs, go to the other place. But unless the Government are preparing to create a precedent of that sort we really ought to ask them to clarify their position with regard to this Amendment. After all, there are lawyers on the Government side of the House as well as on this side.
We miss the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I am sure that he would make a most valuable contribution as to which of these two Amendments was preferable. I feel confident that on this occasion his support for the Government would not be forthcoming, or rather I would say his support for the view put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. I feel sure that on this occasion he would agree with me, and with my hon. Friends, that the


Amendment moved from this side uses language which is more ordinarily found in statutes and consequently more easily interpreted. I ask the hon. Member, if he cannot tell us today what is the right answer, at least to say that he will give the matter most careful consideration before it goes to the other place, instead, as he rather indicated, of leaving it to the other place to express any view they wish.

Mr. Callaghan: If I may have the leave of the House to reply, I would say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he wishes the Government to reserve to another place points of principle such as this, I am sure that the Government would find no great difficulty in doing so. But I imagine that there was a difference of degree between the sort of point we are discussing here and the one to which he was referring.
The hon. and learned Gentleman invites me to say that we should leave this to another place to decide. He has probably not followed the history of this or he would realise that, in fact, that is what we were trying not to do. What we are proposing here, as appears on the Order Paper, is another Amendment to the words which appear now and originally appeared in Clause 4. We are proposing a form of words which get rid of this phrase, "reasons for doing so" to which some objection was taken in Committee. It was in an attempt to try to meet the views expressed in Committee by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we put down this alternative form which I hope to move very shortly. But our desire is simply to preserve the emphasis on the principle that consent should only be withheld if there is a strong reason for doing so. I am advised that of the three forms of words so far discussed the form of words which I wish to stick to are the most likely to do that.
There is another view about that, and these interpretations by individuals is something about which a great deal of discussion can turn. All I would say is that there is another opportunity to debate that. At the present time we do intend to propose an alternative form of words in order to try partially to meet other wishes and proposals, if we can.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In view of what Parliamentary Secretary says I will not

press the point any further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 5, line 22, leave out "reasons for," and insert "circumstances justifying them in."

Mr. Barnes: In view of the discussion which has taken place I do not wish to move this Amendment, so that we shall leave the whole matter open.

CLAUSE 10.—(Additional powers of acquiring land for special roads.)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 11, line 16, to leave out from first "land," to "required," in line 18.
I hope I shall not be out of Order in saying a word or two on this Clause, before seeking to put before the House the purpose of this Amendment and its effect. This Clause seeks to extend the power of the highway authority under Section 13 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935. Under that Clause the highway authority could acquire land within 220 yards from the middle of the road for two purposes. Where it was necessary for the construction or improvement of the road was one purpose. The second was for preventing the erection of buildings detrimental to the view from the road. This Clause carries out quite a different object. First it seeks to give the highway authority power to acquire land beyond the limit of 220 yards from the middle of the road for the carrying out of any works. I am sorry that there is no lawyer on the Government Front Bench at the moment, because I should like to know whether it is the view of the Government that the expression,
carrying out of any works
is equivalent and means entirely the same as the phrase in the 1935 Act:
the purposes of the construction or improvement of the road.
I should have thought that the form of words in the 1935 Act would have been adequate to cover the construction of such things as "fly-overs" and so on, to use the modern jargon. It is a phrase which


was used by the Minister during the Committee stage. That is one purpose which this Bill seeks to add to the power of the highway authority under the 1935 Act. If the meaning of the phrase:
carrying out of any works
is the same as the meaning of the other phrase I have quoted, so far the only extension of the power of the highway authority is in its power to acquire in excess of 220 yards from the middle of the road. But then this Bill goes on to say that the land may be acquired beyond 220 yards—and indeed up to 220 yards as well——
…for the provision of service stations or other buildings or facilities to be used in connection with the construction of a special road, or the use or maintenance thereof.
That is an entirely new purpose which, in some respects, would appear likely to negative the second purpose of the 1935 Act of maintaining the view from the road.
The serious feature which this Amendment seeks to remove from the Clause is the fact that, apparently, it is left solely to the highway authority to decide whether land should be acquired for one or other of these purposes, whatever distance it may be from the special road. It will be seen that the authority have to form the opinion that it should be acquired, and then the necessary steps can be taken to acquire it compulsorily. It does not seem to me to be right in these days, that one should give the overriding power to the highway authority in this respect. Today the Minister of Agriculture answered Questions relating to the acquisition of good agricultural land. The same problem will arise in the case of agricultural land which is sought to be acquired some distance from the special roads for any of the purposes mentioned in this Subsection. I should like the Minister of Agriculture to have a much bigger say in determining whether or not such land should be taken from agriculture for the purpose of creating a picnic centre or building a cafe or hostel.
I do not contend that it is not most desirable that there should be facilities adjoining a special road whereby traffic can be taken off the special road when it is necessary for it to stop. Watling Street runs through the length of my constituency. Often I have to travel along

it at night. The road is used very heavily at night and I know that one of the chief dangers of using it, particularly on a foggy night such as those which we experienced last week, is that of some vehicle stopping, possibly with a defective tail light, and some other vehicle running into it. While one recognises that danger and the desirability of taking off the road, traffic which must stop, there must be a check upon the extensive power of acquisition which this Subsection appears to give to the highway authority.
By this Amendment, we seek to take out the words:
(including land lying more than two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the special road) which in the opinion of the authority is…
I do not think that the first part of that is really necessary to this Measure. The meaning would be unaffected by the deletion of those words. What is really important is that we should leave out the words:
in the opinion of the authority is.
If we leave out those words, we take away from the highway authority the power, notwithstanding any representations made to them in the interests of agriculture, to say that any land may be seized for any particular purpose. During the Committee stage, the Minister indicated that he would re-examine this matter to see whether the subsection could be improved. I am sorry to say that so far the problem appears to have defeated him. Perhaps we shall be told once again by the Parliamentary Secretary that one can safely leave this matter for consideration in another place.
I hope that we may get some satisfaction today by the acceptance of this Amendment which would merely result in enabling the view of agriculture to be better heard before agricultural land, which may be very good, is taken away. There is no limit to the distance which the land may be away from the special road. The Minister said during the Committee stage:
It gives power to go beyond the 220-yards limit where land is required for the building of a cafe or a hostel. There is no reason why such a building should be immediately on the side of the main road. It should be taken back some distance and placed in surroundings more congenial to it."—[OFFICTAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 7th December, 1948;c. 123.]


Surely, it would be most unusual to have to take a cafe or hostel back a distance in excess of 220 yards for purely amenity purposes. If it has to be taken back that distance, presumably there will have to be another access road to the cafe and the total loss of agricultural land may be extensive. The main point of this Amendment is to ensure that proper consideration shall be given before more agricultural land is compulsorily seized by removal of the sole determination of that question from the power of the highway authorities.

Mr. Renton: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me that there is a point of substance and a point of form in this Amendment. I do not think there is very much difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on the point of substance. Obviously, special roads have to be reasonably spacious. If they are to be restricted too much, then obviously they would be less effective than if they had good verges, but that is not to say that the Minister should have unlimited powers of acquiring land on either side of these special roads. After all, if he were to take the 220 yards on each side, plus the width of the road, which may very easily be 100 feet or more, especially if there are verges in the middle of it, he would get a strip of land taken up by his special road stretching for miles into the countryside and about a quarter-of-a-mile in width. In addition to that, outside those strips, he might wish to have spaces for parking, roadside cafes and almost anything. It can be conceded on both sides that, first, there must be some spaciousness, and, secondly, that there must be some kind of limitation.
I now turn to the point of form, and here I feel bound to say that the Clause as it is drafted does not appear to be quite as clear in its meaning as it might be. I must confess that I have been very confused by the insertion of the words in brackets. They are not properly words of limitation, though they might possibly be words of guidance. When we are making laws, we generally try to be specific, and we try or should try to define precisely the powers which are being granted by Parliament. Those words in brackets do not do that; indeed, they merely confuse the issue. I

should like to endorse what my hon. and learned Friend has said about allowing an authority, by the mere act of giving its opinion, to decide the matter finally. The people who should define the issue finally are the arbitrators or courts, who will have to decide in controversial cases, whether or not the land is being properly acquired.

Mr. York: I rise to support my hon. Friends. On this side of the House, we are concerned to prevent the special road authorities from taking more land than is absolutely essential. Of course, we know that, when the planners get together, they try to present a perfect picture, in this case of the perfect road, with all its amenities, its cafés and hostels, its lay-bys and the things represented by all sorts of curious terms which we have heard while discussing this Bill.
What we are seeking to do is to curb the impetuosity of the planners and make certain that they are unable legally to acquire any land unless they have an absolutely essential need for it. It is becoming more and more obvious and more and more serious, that the depredations which are being made upon the agricultural land of this country is increasing. If it is not the Minister of Transport grabbing land for special roads, it is the Minister of Health grabbing land for reservoirs or the Minister of Town and Country Planning grabbing land for new towns, or the War Office grabbing even more and more land for their training areas for troops. So it goes on, and the present Government seems to be unable to curb the acquisitive instincts of these Departments and trying to get them to act reasonably, in view of the rate at which the very limited land of this country is being used up.
4.45 p.m.
Here we have another case of the land-grabber. We have heard the arguments before concerning how little land is going to be taken for these schemes, but I am not impressed by that argument. If we take away one acre of agricultural land, it simply means that we are unable to feed two people from the land of this country, and we are becoming increasingly aware that it is essential that we should feed not fewer but more of our people from our own land. When we consider the various uses to which the


powers sought in this Clause may be put, we come up against a shock. I seem to remember from my study of this Bill, that perhaps trees or woods may be required for the purpose of a screen, either to protect an amenity or a section of landscape, or for the purpose of combating dazzle or something like that.
That brings me to the second consideration. Here is this new road authority being set up, and being given a most curious collection of powers. The road authority, as we are to understand it from this Bill, may also be a housing authority or a forestry authority, and I presume it may even become an agricultural authority, if it grabs a large enough area of land and begins cultivating the bits that it does not want. There is a whole series of machinations in which this special road authority may engage, and the purpose of this Amendment is to see that that authority is tied down and prevented from going on land which it does not require.
If the special road authority is to be given unlimited scope for expansion, by providing hostels, acquiring woods or even mountain tops or scenery rights, it will need a special staff. In addition to wasting land, it will waste manpower, because everything connected with it will need a special staff in order to cope with the special difficulties which will arise. From every point of view, it is essential that we should limit the Minister in his powers of acquiring land for these and similar purposes. I think it is also quite reasonable and possible that we should limit the Minister so that he cannot acquire land except for certain functions, which I think should be laid down in the Bill. For those reasons, I strongly support the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Janner: I am rather at a loss to understand how the Amendment is going to meet the case which the hon. Members who support it have put forward. It seems to me that, even if these words are left out, the authority would be able to do precisely what the hon. Members say they ought not to be allowed to do. I think it is only as a matter of clearing up the position, so far as the Bill is concerned, that the words are at all applicable. I

speak subject to correction by my right hon. Friend, but, if the Clause is amended in the way proposed, there will be no real difference in its effect.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the words in line 22 have no meaning?

Mr. Janner: In any circumstances, there would be the opinion of the authority [Interruption.] Indeed, there would; at any rate, that is my view. I think that is the only way in which we could cope with this situation.

Mr. Barnes: The main burden of the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) appears to be the fear that this would represent the absorption or the taking over of a greater amount of land than was necessary. The hon. Member for Huntingdon said he recognised that a special road had to be reasonably spacious. That appears to me to be an incorrect assessment of a special road or motorway.
When I introduced the Bill, I emphasised the fact that a special road will occupy less land than an all-purpose road. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that, on an average, it will probably occupy about 10 per cent. less land than the normal all-purpose road. That being so, I do not think it is quite right to approach this problem of a special road from the point of view that it will eat into the land reserves of this country more than did our previous road policy.
The second point I wish to emphasise is that a special road would not, of course, be built unless, first of all, a case were made out for an entirely new road. As to the type of traffic with which one is seeking to deal, it is assumed that certain special roads will take the through. fast-moving and heavy traffic off our existing roads, and that, therefore, there will be an economy in that respect. That being so, I wish to repudiate at once the general theme running through the advocacy of this Amendment, that it is a plan to economise in agricultural land.
It is desirable that I should deal with amenities and facilities in connection with the amount of land required for the construction of a new road. I think it


follows of necessity that, if the special road is to occupy less land along the route, it becomes necessary, in order to avoid the danger to which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry referred when there is a limited road surface—the danger of parking—to take that traffic off the special road when it comes to its resting or parking point.
Anyone who has travelled the main trunk highways of this country through the night, as I have, will be aware that heavy lorries congregate at well-known places and occupy a considerable area of ground. More often than not, they are strung out for some distance before a café and on either side of the road. When we are thinking in terms of providing facilities necessary on long-distance roads of this kind, it is desirable that we should make provision for the removal of vehicles from such roads when drivers are resting for refreshment, or purposes of that kind. But to impose an arbitrary limit of 220 yards would appear unnecessarily to hamper the design of the road and the facilities which should go with it. I do not anticipate that these parking places will be along any particular route; I do not consider for one moment that they will represent much additional land, but that is not the sole reason why I refuse to accept this Amendment.
I find after very careful consideration, that I am unable to accept this Amendment because I do not think that, in the matter of a special road, a case has been made out for this limitation. We must bear in mind the special purpose of a motorway, which is to allow traffic to move easily and speedily along it. That being the case, important junctions dealing, probably, in some instances, with a considerable volume of cross traffic, will have to be taken either over or under the special road. Whilst in a discussion of this kind, one cannot pick out any particular spot, nevertheless, one is generally familiar with the different contours of our countryside and with the peculiarities of any particular piece of the countryside at a given junction. It might mean that in picking up the side roads it would be necessary to go far beyond the 220 yards limit.
One should bear in mind—and it is not an unfamiliar situation—that a section of the highway may be completed and that then, for some reason or other,

work on it may have to stop. It may be necessary to complete the link with a part of the existing road system. Therefore, from whatever angle one views this problem, it appears to me that the characteristics of a special road introduce features which are different from the problem of an all-purpose road where access can be made as readily and as easily as one wishes. Therefore, whilst I had every desire to meet the wishes of the mover and his hon. Friends with regard to the point of view urged by them in this respect, I really cannot see what advantage is gained by a limitation of this character. To my mind it is quite beyond any possibility that the highway engineers——

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he appreciated the purport of the argument I was putting before him, and I should be grateful if he would say something about it. I was waiting because I thought he was coming to it, but it now appears that he is concluding his remarks. I have never suggested that there should be an arbitrary limit; not one word of mine suggested it. I pointed out the fact that the first part of the sentence with which we seek to deal is unnecessary. The point I raised, and to which I attach great importance was the matter of allowing the highway authority to be the sole determining authority as to what land should be taken. The words:
In the opinion of the authority"——

Mr. Barnes: That is not the meaning as I read the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Indeed, it is. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at our Amendment, he will see that we propose to leave out the words:
In the opinion of the authority.
They are part of the words which should be left out, and the whole burden of my speech can be summed up very shortly. While it may be necessary to take some land somewhere away from the special road, we should not allow the highway authority to have the sole right of determining what land should be taken. The Minister of Agriculture and others interested should have a say about that.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Minister of


Agriculture should have a say. He always does have a say. The hon. and learned Member has not moved that the name of the Minister of Agriculture should be inserted here, and when that point was previously raised, I explained why it could not be inserted here. Nevertheless, it is no use the hon. and learned Member assuming that the Minister of Agriculture is not consulted. He is consulted; but the body which must be responsible for drafting the highways scheme in this case, if it went beyond 220 yards, must be the highway authority. The responsibility must rest upon the highway authority. Of course, discussions would take place with the Minister of Agriculture and with the Minister of any other Department concerned, but I fail to see that the responsibility should be removed from the highway authority which, after all, is the body which will construct the road and must make out its case for the approval of the Minister, in consultation with other Departments.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's arguments have been directed to the Amendment. I agree with much that he has said, but it did not seem to me to bear any relation to the argument which has been addressed from this side of the House. If I might first of all deal with the Minister's arguments, and then say a few words about the Amendment, it may give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to consider this important matter a little further. He said that the burden of our argument was that more land would be taken. That was not the burden of our argument. The burden of our argument was that powers are given for the taking of land, and the test is the opinion of the authority. Nobody suggests that the Minister will seize a lot of land unnecessarily, but the reasonableness of a Minister is never a safe test for legislation, no matter to what party the Minister belongs.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that a special road will not be built unless it is proved to be necessary. Of course, it will not be built unless it is necessary. It is very costly to build. But that is no reason why there should be no limit on the power to take land on either side. The Minister referred to parking places. I

agree entirely that we cannot have parking places, or "lay-bys" or whatever awful word is used for them nowadays, immediately beside the road, but that is no reason why this Bill should contain power whereby if, in the opinion of a highway authority, a parking place is required a mile away from the road, they should take the land. Some limit ought to be imposed.
The right hon. Gentleman will see that the first effect of this Amendment is to leave out the words:
(including land lying more than two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the special road).
I want the right hon. Gentleman to say the purpose of those words. They add nothing to the Bill. They include land which is less than 220 yards and they include land which is more than 220 yards from the middle of the road; so that if the words were not there at all it would make no difference whatever to the powers under the Bill. If there are words which mean absolutely nothing, it is a good thing to leave them out of the Bill altogether.
The second group of words which the Amendment seeks to leave out are:
which in the opinion of the authority.
Of course, the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) is absolutely wrong in the point which he submitted. I am surprised at the hon. Member having put the point. The words
in the opinion of the authority 
are vital, because once those words have been included, all that has to happen when land is taken is for the authority to say, "In our opinion, it is necessary." From that moment no further argument can take place.

Mr. Janner: Who does the hon. Gentleman think will be the authority who will ultimately decide what land is required, when the Clause itself says:
The power of a highway authority under Section thirteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to acquire land for the purpose of the construction or improvement of any road shall, in relation to special roads, include…
certain powers?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If I am asked to define the final arbitrator, it will be the courts of this country. All that need happen is that someone should go to the


courts and say, "In the opinion of the highway authority, this is necessary."
The matter goes somewhat further than that, because under an Amendment which was moved today when the Bill was recommitted, the words have been somewhat altered. It is no longer necessary to say that, in their opinion, it is necessary to take land
for the carrying out of any works.
Those words have been excluded, and the far wider words, "purposes of," which need not include works at all, have been inserted. A highway authority can say. "It is necessary for our purposes, either for the purposes of an order under Section 3, or for the provision of service stations, or for other buildings or facilities in connection with the construction of the special road or the use or maintenance thereof."
The provision can scarcely be wider. In fact, this Clause as at present drafted gives power to take land anywhere outside a special road. At any stage an authority can say that in their opinion it is necessary for facilities to be used in connection with the construction of a special road, the provision of service stations or anything they like. I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is going much too far.
I now come to the purpose of the Amendment. The Amendment is surprisingly generous to the right hon. Gentleman, because it does not set an arbitrary limit on the distance which he can go from special roads. Personally, I think the Amendment is almost too generous. It removes from the Clause the unnecessary words to which I referred, and also the words:
which in the opinion of the authority.
Therefore, if the matter is challenged, it is necessary for somebody to show that it is necessary
for the purposes of an order under…Section three.
I think that is a very reasonable safeguard to apply to the actions of the Minister or the highway authority.
I do not wish to be too dogmatic about this. If the Minister likes to deal with the matter in some other way and say that he would prefer not to be open to so much challenge, I think he ought to impose a territorial limit to his

activities on either side of the road; it may be half a mile or whatever limit he thinks best, but I am sure that we cannot allow this Bill to go through Parliament in such a form so that in the opinion of a highway authority almost any piece of land or any house or anything else can be seized at any distance from the road because somebody decides that the road has to be a special road. In those circumstances, I hope the Minister will go some way towards meeting our point.

Mr. Joynson - Hicks: I have been listening with great attention to the Minister, because I thought he would clarify the point at issue. The point at issue is that we are here dealing with a Bill called the Special Roads Bill which the House is under the impression is intended to be a Bill authorising the creation of special roads. The provision which we on this side of the House are trying to limit is a wrecking provision. It is designed so that, if used to the full limit, it will wreck all the land requisitioning Acts which have been passed by Parliament in all time. It authorises the highway authority, who for the purpose of this special road will be the Minister, to acquire land for anything for which he may think it desirable to acquire land. His opinion will overrule that of everybody else and will be unchallengeable.
I make no prophecy or allegation about the right hon. Gentleman, but if he were at some time to go gay and become so exhilarated at the thought of his special roads that he went further than at the moment we anticipate he will go, he could perfectly well say, "Here we will have a lay-by and we will carry on half-a-mile in that direction." If he then found a pleasant wood he could say, "We will have a suitable parking place here." Then he could go on until he found a village where he could say, "This is an admirable recreation centre to he used in connection with the special road." He has the power to acquire the village. In the end, by these devious means and by his over-riding right of land acquisition, he could carry his special road all over the countryside. In practice there is virtually no limit at all to what land the right hon. Gentleman could acquire under the powers contained in this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman said—and I appreciated this to the full—that the land actually to be acquired in connection with a special road will probably be 10 per cent. less than would be necessary for a corresponding general purpose road. That, however, is not what the Bill says. Notwithstanding that intention, the Bill gives him power, practically speaking, to take unlimited quantities of land. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House and say that his intentions are honest and honourable, but we do not know who may be operating this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, in 10 years' time. It is most unlikely that any special roads will be built before that time. It is, therefore, the duty of this House, in passing legislation of this sort, to put into the legislation limits of such a kind as to enable, but not to hamper, the authority in the job it has to do. It is not the duty of this House to give all-embracing powers to one individual, not only to the Government but to the Minister, for the time being, as the highway authority for the special road. It is not their duty to give him carte blanche to enable him to do whatsoever he will on the certificate that "in his opinion" it is suitable for this particular purpose.
I strongly urge upon the House that the powers we are being asked to grant, and which this Amendment would succeed in limiting, are far greater than it is either necessary or desirable for any Minister to have. They are far greater than is necessary for the purpose for which the Minister is seeking them. If the Amendment were accepted, it would still leave with the Minister all the powers which are necessary.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I rise to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). I think the difficulty in this matter is that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary cannot conceive that any powers for a purpose which they think desirable can possibly be excessive. The possibility that, if they have some honest intentions in their minds for the public good, it may nevertheless be possible to concede grossly excessive powers for that purpose is something which really does not cross their minds.
I want to deal with only one part of the wording which we propose to leave out. There are some words, in brackets, in which some of my hon. Friends failed to find any purpose. I can conceive that those words have been used because of the earlier reference to the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act and my criticism is not devoted to those words. It it devoted to the further words,
which in the opinion of the authority
I think the excessiveness of the powers taken will become apparent to the House if two facts are borne in mind—two facts which I think have not yet been mentioned. The speeches we have heard from the Front Bench opposite have all spoken of a new special road being constructed, but of course we are not necessarily concerned with a new road at all. It may be an existing road which is appropriated. That is the first point I ask the House to bear in mind. The second point is that land includes buildings. If that is borne in mind it will be seen that buildings can be acquired under this Clause. If the only requirement enabling it to be acquired is the opinion of a highway authority, that clearly shows that there is an excessive power and lack of proportion which I am sure the Government, on further consideration, would not desire that the Bill should contain.
There is another point upon which I would not express an opinion without looking the matter up. It seems to me at least possible that common land could be taken under this paragraph.

Mr. Alpass: Much common land has been taken before now.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) quite rightly says that too much of it has been taken already. I hope, therefore, we shall have his support in the Amendment we are moving.

Mr. Alpass: Mr. Alpass rose——

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member will have his chance later. I ask the Minister whether I am correct in suggesting that land in the paragraph which we are now considering would include common land. It would certainly include buildings and in the Statute the only requirement would be that it must be required in the opinion of the authority. That really is not good


enough. It may be that better Amendments could be devised for the purpose we are seeking to achieve, and which I think the House would wish to achieve, but if the Minister tries to defend this Clause as it stands, I think he is trying to defend the indefensible.

Mr. Barnes: If I may have the indulgence of the House I should like to deal first with the point about "in their opinion." The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) stated the position quite clearly. If hon. Members will look at Section 13 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, they will see quite clearly that we are following the precedent of that Act. It says:
Any highway authority may acquire any land within 220 yards from the middle of any road the acquisition of which is, in their opinion, necessary for the purposes of the construction or improvement.…

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the Minister read the next part of that Section, because if he does, he will see that in that connection the opinion is to be exercised for quite a different purpose from that in this Bill. The argument which he is seeking to put forward, based on the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, does not hold water when we come to these particular powers.

Mr. Barnes: That is a matter of opinion and I do not accept that view at all. If I were to accept this Amendment and follow the line of the argument of hon. Members opposite, I should merely be transferring the responsibility in this matter from the Minister to the law courts, because that would be the only way of testing an issue of this character.
I rose to deal with the point which the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) submitted to me at the conclusion of his remarks. He said he did not wish to deal with this matter in an arbitrary sense. He thought we should be willing to consider some limits. Following the discussion of this subject in the Committee stage, I entered into correspondence with the hon. Member with a view to trying to get an agreement on the question of limitation, if that were the main concern of hon. Members opposite. Of course, I naturally wanted it to be sufficiently wide to meet contingencies. I would remind hon. Members again that I submitted

models at an exhibition to show the type of construction and alteration that will be necessary with the special roads. I was anxious to get an agreement on the question of the limitation of these powers, but I was unable to do so. I find that the restriction of 220 yards from the middle of the road will, in my view. be inadequate for the special roads.
If hon. Members withdraw their Amendment now, I shall be prepared still to try to reach a reasonable and agreed settlement of this matter. I am unable to accept the Amendment tonight, but will pursue the course of seeing if it is possible to obtain a sufficiently wide latitude that we think will meet the reasonable contingencies, and to remove the fear—which I agree is a reasonable one—that Ministers may roam all over the place to satisfy fads and fancies.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concluding words, and I hope he will succeed in finding some form of words which will be satisfactory to both sides of the House. I do not think that there is much difference in objective between us. However, we on this side of the House think it is wrong that a highway authority should be the sole judge in its own cause. We think it is wrong—we can almost call the Minister of Agriculture to our side after what he said at Question time today—that the Minister of Agriculture should come in only on the consultative level and should not exercise greater weight. He ought to have some power of deciding these matters in conjunction with the Minister of Transport. They should not be left only to the highway authorities. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will examine that very carefully. In view of what he has said, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave. Withdrawn

CLAUSE 12.—(Provisions as to use of special roads.)

Mr. Renton: On a point of Order. May I suggest that the Minister's next Amendment—in page 12, line 34, to leave out "crossing of such roads," and insert "use of such roads, at crossing places,"—should be taken with that in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, in page 12, line 34, to leave out from "roads." to "subject." in line 35?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think that if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried, the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, will fall to the ground.

Mr. Renton: I am merely asking that they should be discussed together. We take the view that the Minister's Amendment, although it has the same purpose as our Amendment, does not in itself sufficiently achieve that purpose, and that it is necessary to add our Amendment to the Minister's.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, to leave out "crossing of such roads," and to insert "use of such roads, at crossing places."
This Amendment has been put down by my right hon. Friend as a result of a trio we had in Standing Committee. Before the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) spoke just now, I thought that this Amendment would be received with bouquets. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) pointed out during the discussion that there might be some conflict in the interpretation of Subsection (2, a) and Subsection (2, b)—that the words in Subsection (2, a)"roads may be used" may form the antithesis of the words in Subsection (2, b) "crossing of such roads." He took the view that the courts might hold that "use," in Subsection (2, a) did not include "crossing" as used in Subsection (2, b). The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to insert the word "use" in both Subsections, and to make it quite clear that the Minister is empowered to authorise traffic, which is empowered to use the road by virtue of the scheme also to cross the road, as well as to authorise traffic, which is not empowered to use the road, to cross the road. I trust that is clear. I made it clear to myself and I hope it is to everyone else. That is what our Amendment is designed to achieve.

Mr. H. Strauss: But the hon. Gentleman still leaves in the words "other than such traffic as aforesaid." If he leaves those words, clearly he will not achieve the object about which he has told the House.

Mr. Callaghan: It is true that it is proposed to leave in the words "other than such traffic as aforesaid." Subsection (2, b) will read:
(b) authorise the use of such roads, at crossing places by traffic, other than such traffic as aforesaid, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations.
That refers back to Subsection (2, a) and the traffic as aforesaid, which is the traffic which is authorised by means of the scheme to use the roads. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that other traffic which is not authorised by the scheme to use the road may now be authorised to cross the road.
I think that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), to which the hon. Member for Huntingdon referred, is objectionable purely on drafting grounds. As I see it, that Amendment would apply paragraph (b) both to unauthorised and to authorised traffic, and since authorised traffic is dealt with in paragraph (a)—I am back on the old point—we should be duplicating in paragraph (b) the provisions which are already made in paragraph (a). It is a very technical little point. I have tried to make it as clear as I can.

Mr. Renton: With great respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I think he has misconstrued the wording of this Clause. The difficulty we found in Committee arose from the words which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) pointed out, the Government propose to leave in. Let me examine the effect of those words. They are the words in line 34, "other than such traffic as aforesaid." When we try to find out what "such traffic as aforesaid" is, we find that it is the class of traffic—there is some importance in those words—authorised to use special roads.
5.30 p.m.
The net effect, therefore, is that traffic which is of a class authorised to cross the road will not be permitted to cross it, and that appears to us to make nonsense. Supposing ordinary motor traffic—private cars, goods vehicles and passenger vehicles—are authorised to cross the road, if the Government Amendment is accepted and the words to which I am referring in line 34 are kept in, those vehicles will not be allowed either to cross


the road or to use the crossing places. Surely that cannot be intended. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) pointed out in Committee, the difficulty also arises in those cases in which the Government decide to allow the use of the road to, say, cyclists on a track. Obviously, cyclists who are to be allowed to use the track going along the side of the road, must at some time be permitted to get to the other side of the road, if they require to do so, but by retaining the words
other than such traffic as aforesaid,
they will, I think, be prohibited. I cannot accept the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation that by reading paragraphs (a) and (b) together we then have the position that they will be allowed to do so. For those reasons, I regret to have to point out that, however good the intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary in these matters—and I think that they are good—his Amendment does not fulfil his own intentions or ours on the point which we raised in Committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Has the Amendment before the House been seconded, and does it not require to be seconded, Major Milner?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The position is that when a Motion is moved by a Minister, a seconder is dispensed with.

Mr. Keeling: It is the considered opinion of myself and some of my hon. Friends that this Amendment does not meet our point and that the effect of the Clause, even with this Government Amendment, will be that motorways may be an impenetrable barrier to any existing footpaths which intersect the route of the motorways. I should like to repeat the simple explanation of that point which I made in the Standing Committee. Supposing that the green space between the Table and the Bar is the motorway, and the strip of red and green carpet over which one must not step when making a speech is an authorised footpath running along the motorway, and supposing the Gangway is an existing footpath, the effect of the Clause even with the Government's Amendment will be that there will be no access from the footpath along the Gangway to the new authorised footpath along the motorway. It does not make any difference whether we talk as paragraph (b) does about the crossing of such roads, or, as the Amend-

ment does, about the use of such roads at crossings. It does not make a halfpenny of difference. The Minister admitted that our Amendment covers the point but he said that it was too wide. As the whole Clause is merely permissive, I cannot see how it can be too wide.
It seems to me that the draftsman has made the task of understanding this Clause quite unnecessarily difficult. I want to make this constructive suggestion. I suggest that the Government should consider before the Bill reaches another place whether they will not combine paragraphs (a) and (b) and let them say simply that the regulations may regulate the manner in which, and the conditions subject to which, such roads may be used and crossed. The whole Clause is permissive and that should make the whole matter perfectly clear. I ask the Government to consider that suggestion before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not want to repeat the arguments used by my hon. Friends. I think I know what has happened in the Minister's mind, which is a remarkable thing to know. I think that he and his advisers had firmly in their heads what they intended to do, but their intentions have not been fulfilled. They intended that paragraph (a) should deal with the authorised traffic and paragraph (b) with the unauthorised traffic. Unfortunately, in the way in which they have worded the Clause, paragraph (a) deals with the traffic going along the road and paragraph (b) deals with the traffic crossing the road. The words which the Government have inserted do not alter that. Paragraph (a) reads:
regulate the manner in which and the conditions subject to which roads may be used by traffic of the classes authorised.
and anyone reading that would think that it related to the manner of driving along the road and had nothing to do with crossing it. It is paragraph (b) which is concerned with the crossing of roads. It some Amendment on the lines of that moved from this side of the House is accepted by the Government, it cannot hurt the Minister; it can only widen his powers. I am not going to press for the Amendment—it is in the Minister's own interest, and I am not going to try to do good to him against his will—but we


think that, on the whole, it would be a more workable proposition if he looked at this matter in this light and accepted some Amendment such as we have proposed.

Mr. H. Strauss: I will not follow the example of my hon. Friends by endeavouring to draft an Amendment at this moment without the most close consideration. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers have endeavoured to meet the points put before them in Committee, but I think they have not been entirely successful. I gather from the speech of the Minister—and I am grateful to him for making a point which I admit I had not noticed when I first read the Amendment—that he thinks that under paragraph (a) it will be possible to provide for the crossing of the road by any of the classes of traffic entitled to go along it. I will not say that that may not be technically so, but I think that the effect of drafting it in this way makes the Clause extremely clumsy, and that the Amendment which he proposes to introduce in paragraph (b) may have, even from his own point of view, a slightly unfortunate effect in certain circumstances. He speaks of "crossing places." The natural interpretation of that is that there are particular places on the road where one is allowed to cross from one side to the other.
It is quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman may wish to provide, in the case of some traffic which enjoys an ancient right to cross the line of the road, for it to enter at one spot and leave at a spot a little further along. If he does, the expression:
At crossing places 
is not a very happy one. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be consulting his own interests if he carefully reads the points which we raised in Committee and tries to draft in a simpler form something which will quite clearly meet the requirements to which we drew his attention, and which will not have any of the defects which, I believe, the drafting he now suggests will have.

Mr. Callaghan: I wish I could be as sure as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) when he said that as he sees this Subsection authorised traffic may not cross the road. I cannot be so

certain as that. Indeed, I would take the other point of view, that the word "use" includes the word "cross"; as the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities. (Mr. H. Strauss) said, that is the point upon which I relied. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) is quite right in saying that it was as a result of our considerations in Committee and the point of view then put that we have tried to introduce into paragraph (b) the words which distinguished "use" from "cross"; that is the only reason why I did not say straight away that we would accept the next proposed Amendment—in page 12, line 34, to leave out from "roads" to "subject" in line 35—because in my view in would have been tautological. I do not like tautology, but I do like simplicity, and therefore I should like to take up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and have another look at paragraphs (a) and (b) to see whether there is some alternative form of wording, either by combining them or in some other way, to enable us to make the intention quite clear. We both want to achieve the same objective here: the only question is who is right and who is, perhaps, not quite so right. In order that I might consider the wording again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 12. line 39, after "emergency," to insert:
or for the purpose of securing access to premises abutting on or adjacent to the roads.
This Amendment concerns the regulations that may be applied to green tracks. In the event of a green track being taken over, it is possible that the line might have been used by the vehicles of a farm to obtain access to the normal road system. That would represent an occasional, limited traffic, and would not in any way destroy the purpose of the green track as a special road. But here obviously the Minister should have powers in his regulation to avoid the necessity of building a special link road, connecting link or alternative link for a limited traffic of that kind. He should have the powers to deal with a limited problem of that kind, and this Amendment will provide that opportunity. I am very anxious that these green tracks should form part of our special road facilities, and in the powers taken


in this connection under the Bill I should like to remove potential opposition in the way of access or convenience.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I rise only to ask my right hon. Friend to make it perfectly clear that this Amendment does not to some extent defeat the intention to build special roads to serve a specific purpose. So far as Class I traffic is concerned, this Amendment appears to act against the principles on which the construction of these roads is based, and if a large number of buildings adjacent to or adjoining the road are to be approached from the special road itself, that would obviously defeat the purpose of the special road. As I understand it, the purpose of these motorways is to give more convenient and extensive opportunities to traffic, but it is clear that if, adjacent to or adjoining the road, there were a large number——

Mr. Barnes: I did say that this Amendment concerned green tracks, not motorways.

Mr. Janner: I appreciate that, but the Amendment does not say so. The trouble is that the interpretation of a Clause of this kind as given in the House will not, as my right hon. Friend very well knows, necessarily be the interpretation given to it in other quarters. Indeed, that was one of the things I had in mind when speaking a few moments ago on a previous Amendment. If it is desired to have these roads for the purpose intended under the Bill, then clearly there will have to be some land on which it may be necessary to put buildings some distance from the road. I hope that the Minister will make it clear by some words which will confine the purpose to the one he indicated in the course of his speech, or if not in that way by some other method, that it is not intended to give opportunities for defeating the objects of the Bill as a whole.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think that the Minister made quite clear that what he had in mind in moving this Amendment were the green roads, to which I alluded several times in Committee. Since the proposed new Clause standing in my name—(Power to restrict use of vehicles on specified roads)—was not called, I am particularly eager that the powers which the Minister is convinced will enable him

to do what I want—with which I think he has a good deal of sympathy—shall be clearly available. This Amendment is designed to meet a defect which I pointed out to the Minister, and for that reason I am very grateful to him for looking into the matter and putting down an Amendment to fill a gap which I am sure would otherwise exist.
The only purpose of my rising now is to ask the Minister to consider whether he has quite adequately done what I am sure he seeks to do. My doubt is whether the word "premises" is sufficient. To take the example of the Berkshire Ridgeway, the traffic which it is here quite clearly intended to provide for, if the Ridgeway is to be restricted to pedestrians and riders of horses, must be given access, not only to such few premises as there are, but to farms and agricultural land. I should like the Minister to see whether it is quite certain that access to and use of agricultural land is included in the words "access to premises" or whether something further is needēed. If anything further is found to be necessary, I am quite certain that he will be willing to introduce it in another place.

Mr. Barnes: All these points are dealt with by regulation. Hon. Members must leave the dealing with specific problems from time to time to the framing of these regulations, rather than widening the powers of the Minister to make regulations. I do not think there will be any trouble in administration.

Mr. Strauss: By leave of the House, may I say that my last point, if a good one, is a point of substance, and if the Minister's words are insufficient, it will hamper him hereafter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move in page 13. line 19, after "Minister," to insert:
and certain local authorities.
I agreed in Standing Committee to the insertion of the words
and Section twenty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act,
This is a drafting Amendment in connection with that.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Provisions as to schemes, orders and regulations.)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 17, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(2) An order made under section two of this Act shall be of no effect unless it is approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.
This Amendment and the next one are consequential. They give effect to the pledge I gave in Standing Committee to consider whether orders under Clause 2 should not be subject to affirmative Resolution; and having considered the matter, we think it proper that they should be so subject in view of their importance.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I rise only to thank the hon. Gentleman for having agreed to the suggestion which we made. The arrangements made now are reasonable. When a matter of national importance such as the question of how these categories should be divided up, comes to be decided, it is something that requires an affirmative Resolution of the House. The application of the principle —once it has been decided—in individual cases is a matter for the negative procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 22, leave out from first "Act," to end of line.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Schemes and Orders.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 25, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(c) by any other local authority or person appearing to the Minister to be affected by the Scheme.
This Schedule deals with how an order is to be made and which sort of inquiries ought to take place before an order is made, and it is laid down in paragraph 3 that if an objection is made which is reasonable there is to be a local inquiry. Then in paragraph 11 certain bodies are given the power to bring the matter before Parliament under the special procedure. A highway authority, part of whose road is being incorporated in a special road, can take advantage of that procedure, as can a navigation authority affected by the building of a bridge which results in interference with navigation rights.
The effect of this Amendment would be to give local authorities the same

status as either the highway authority part of whose roads is incorporated or a navigation authority. On the face of it, this seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion. It may well be that a local authority through whose area a special road runs, may not, in fact, be the highway authority part of whose road is being taken over, but it may be vitally affected by the creation of one or two special roads. After all, the building of these roads, if and when they are built, will have a rather dramatic effect on various places. They will affect the location of industry in future and transport costs as between different places.
I should like to give one example. Take the Manchester Ship Canal. At the present time rates are fixed so that they are roughly equivalent to the rates of unloading at Liverpool and the transport from Liverpool to Manchester. If suddenly someone starts reorganising the whole of the transport system of that area and introducing special rates—because these roads will give remarkable results in the reduction of transport costs and in the changeover from rail to road transport—it may have quite a big effect on the interests of some of these big local authorities. In such circumstances, local authorities ought not only to be consulted, but they should have the right to take advantage of the Parliamentary special procedure. If the Minister considers this matter he will probably concede that point of view.
I do not think it ought to be left to an accident whether at an appropriate moment a bit of an existing highway is taken over and, therefore, the local authority should have the status of appearing at the hearing. That kind of thing ought not to determine the matter. We should see that local authorities, which are large, responsible bodies and are vitally affected by these things, enjoy the same privileges as a navigation authority. There is too much tendency to take matters away from local authorities and refuse to give them consideration or take them into consultation. The local authorities should be consulted in this matter, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think there is much I need add to what has been said, but I would urge this further consideration upon the right hon. Gentleman. He may say that if a lot of local authorities availed themselves of this procedure schemes will be held up from the prolonged investigations which would result. I do not think there is any weight in that argument. The effect of this procedure may be protracted and it may be expensive so that the local authority is not likely to incur costs which will be a burden upon the ratepayers unless the case is indeed a very serious one.
My constituency will be affected by one of the first special roads to be made. Many local authorities will be affected, too, and I believe that they can play, and want to play a very useful part in the construction of these new roads. It is desirable that they should have the right of using this procedure in the same way as if each of them was a highway authority. I cannot think there is any real danger in accepting this Amendment. As my hon. Friend said, it gives the local authority a status that they should have and does not put them in an inferior position to the highway authorities. I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he is able to accept this Amendment in principle if not in wording.

Mr. Barnes: With every desire in the world to meet the view of the hon. Gentlemen, particularly with regard to their local authorities, I must say that this is a dangerous Amendment. It will widen the opportunities for special Parliamentary procedure right beyond its legitimate bounds. After all, under previous Amendments and during discussion I have been urged to clarify and to simplify the situation, but here I am asked to widen the situation so that any local authority, however remote its interests may be, can demand the special Parliamentary procedure. That would lead to a reduction of the importance of this Parliamentary procedure within the Parliamentary machine. It is appropriate for a Minister or specific authority, as authorised under the powers of any Act, in carrying out their duties, to take the powers, obligations or liabilities of any other statutory authority, and under all the precedents that I can see with regard to previous Acts governing highways it is limited in this respect.
Therefore, I should be disinclined to widen it in the way which is now suggested, especially as these provisions do not in any way supersede the practice and the machinery for a public inquiry. The hon. Member for Monmouth stated that some local authority might consider that the interests of the authority would be affected by the construction of a special road, but that does not appear to be so, for the Bill does not in any way alter their status and liabilities.
I hope the hon. Member wants me to take his Amendment seriously. The point I was making was that if a local authority's liability or statutory requirement is affected, they could avail themselves of the Parliamentary procedure. If it is a matter of interest, I do not see that that case is different from the way the construction of any road affects the interests of any authority or person, whether a farmer or a business man on the side of the road, a local authority or some café proprietor. The public inquiry appears to me to be the machinery by which to discuss the problem of interest, if it should be affected. Therefore, as both categories are properly provided for in the Bill and in past legislation, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Monmouth will not press it.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Classes of Traffic for purposes of Special Roads.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 27, line 17, to leave out "(a)."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment and the consequential Amendments on the Paper were taken together.

Mr. Barnes: Might I raise a point for consideration? All these Amendments have been agreed to. I therefore wondered whether the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) wishes to put any particular case. We might take the remainder of the Amendments formally.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In that case it would be in Order to take the whole of the Amendments together.

Mr. Renton: All the Amendments cover one small and simple point. In meeting that point, all the consequential Amendments would have to be made. The effect of the Amendments is to divide into two classes what at present is one class. As the Schedule stands, Class I is very comprehensive indeed. It includes under paragraph (a) all ordinary motor traffic, including heavy motor traffic. Under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) we find various kinds of abnormal and special traffic. As a matter of pure administrative convenience it appeared to some of my hon. Friends and to myself that it would be very much simpler if those two types of traffic were put into two separate classes.
I am happy to say that the Amendments are being accepted, as a result of constructive suggestions on the part of the Opposition and courteous consideration on the part of the Government. I should like to acknowledge the fact that after we had put down what we thought were the essential Amendments, the first four, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was good enough to suggest to us consequential Amendments which were necessary to tidy the matter up. We accordingly put those Amendments down also.

Mr. Joynson Hicks: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
All that it is necessary for me to say on the Third Reading is to express my appreciation to Members on all sides of the House for the assistance and help which they have given to me for improving the Bill. The main principles were agreed, and our discussions have strengthened and improved the Bill.

6.8 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I would first apologise to the House for my late arrival today. Urgent business strikes us all at some time, and I can only throw myself on the mercy of the House, and ask hon. Members to excuse me for what I am sure they will accept as being uninten-

tional rudeness. I say that specially to the Minister because I think he knows my interest in the Bill and in these matters. Before we leave the Bill I should like to say a word about what has been inserted in it through the efforts of the Committee and of the House today, and one or two sentences about its general purpose and effect in its present form. There is satisfaction on this side, and I think in every part of the House, in regard to the Amendments which were secured on the Committee stage. I am very glad that my hon. Friends have given such attention to securing their coming into law.
There are four points on which we on this side are especially glad that Amendments have been made. The first is that there is now a specific requirement that local and national planning, including agricultural planning, shall be taken into account in the framing of these schemes. On the Second Reading I ventured to put in a short and somewhat tabulated form the problems of agriculture. On reflection I think that I stated them accurately and with a just balance between the needs of that great industry and of the problem which is being dealt with in the Bill. It is a relief to many engaged in agriculture that the requirement which I have just mentioned has been inserted.
The second matter of which I am glad is that there is now a guarantee that alternative routes will be available not later than the stopping-up of existing roads, for the purpose of the special roads. This was a problem which exercised many minds when we first saw the Bill and we are glad to think that some steps toward its solution have been taken. The third matter is the extension of the rights to compensation for damage consequent upon the making of a special road, particularly that damage suffered by a tenant or the owner of any interest in premises to which access is stopped up or limited. That can now be compensated. It is one of the difficulties of government that those who exercise it are always inclined to sacrifice the means to the end. The end appears with a greater effulgence and glory when one is in office than when one is not and those in office are inclined to look a trifle lightly on the difficulties which people will have to meet if their scheme is


brought into effect. In this case these difficulties have been regarded, and I am glad to think that the rights to compensation have been extended.
The fourth matter is one which is historic and invariably arises in this House, and it is the requirement for an affirmative Resolution for any variation in the user Clauses of the Bill. You know so much about affirmative and negative Resolutions and have heard so much more about them than even you know or would care to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would be the last to welcome any large excursion on my part into that thorny subject tonight. But from the point of view of private Members and from the wider point of view of Parliamentary control of the Executive, which is the interest of us all as Members, wherever we may sit, I believe that any occasion when we can get an affirmative Resolution should be taken. It is important that on matters of this stature the Government should have to find time and hon. Members should not be placed in the difficult position of having to find sufficient hon. Friends to keep a House in order to sustain a Prayer. I have quoted these examples because they demonstrate clearly the care which has been taken with this Bill and the improvements which have been made.
I want to say one or two words about the position of the Bill as it leaves this House. I believe that it is a useful thing that the planning of this Measure has been done now. People know what type of roads will come and they know that it is not merely to be a tinkering with existing roads, and, although, as the Minister told us, the roads must take their place in the capital investment queue and must be considered along with other matters, his Department can go on with its planning and the people of the country can plan their own lives and the future of their farms or other activities with that knowledge clearly in mind.
Finally, despite the testing period of Committee and despite the discussions today, I am still convinced that the suggestion incorporated in the Bill is one that must, in time, be brought into force if our country is to receive the benefit which our people deserve. All who are present at this Debate know that it is no mere platitude—it is one of the vital factors in industry today—that transport comes

into the costs of industry at every moment of time from the arrival of the raw material at the ports to the turning out of the order for the consumer. I will not again detail the reasons which I placed before the House on Second Reading, but we believe that great economies can be made and great improvements created. It leaves even in the future—I merely mention the problem; I should not dream of trespassing on your latitude, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by going into it in detail—the great problem of co-ordination of road and rail, because the mere fact is that the better the roads we produce, then the more urgent that problem becomes. We have not so far seen any sign of its solution, and its urgency remains a matter which must fill the minds of all who are interested in transport in this country. Even so, this plan is a good proposal and I take my part in sending it on from this House with the general good wishes of myself and my hon. Friends.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I rise to offer the congratulations of many hon. Members on my side of the House to the Minister for having introduced this Bill and having carried it through in the way he has done. The House is also indebted to all parties for having contributed towards producing an effective Third Reading as speedily as possible. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be convinced that the time should not be very far distant before an opportunity is given for the provisions of the Bill to be put into effect because they are of considerable importance to the economy of the country. It would be false economy to delay the implementation of the provisions unduly. All sides of the House have acknowledged—I think the few critics have been convinced that they were wrong—that the provision of roads of this nature will be of considerable value to the transport needs of the country. Even those who raised points about difficulties which have been or may be experienced in agricultural districts, will readily admit that the provision of these roads in addition to the present road system, will be of considerable value to the farming community in enabling them to transport their products speedily.
The country realises that for many years we have not had the necessary funds for properly maintaining the roads.


and it is strange that although the number of motor vehicles has increased considerably, not a single road has yet been built specially for motor traffic. This Bill presents an opportunity which should be grasped as speedily as possible, and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of all hon. Members in wishing it every success.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Renton: My own feelings in considering this Bill have been rather like those of one dreaming what a heaven it will be when, one day, we have won our economic independence, with the aid of the United States and the Dominions. We know that what we say this afternoon will be on record and perhaps one day some of us and others will turn up what has been said by way of constructive suggestion. May I, therefore, make one or two suggestions which I hope will be borne in mind in the course of time?
One of these I know the Minister agrees with—that there is great scope for converting obsolete railways into special roads, and there are places where they would make good roads. I have expressed the view, based on experience of continental motorways, that where possible, it is good to have broad grass verges to special roads because these greatly improve the amenities. On the other hand, one has to face the fact that in a country the size of ours, that is a great luxury which most probably we shall be unable to afford, however we may regret it. It so happens that the Great North Road and the old North Road both go through my constituency and play a great part in the life of the constituency and of the county. They bear perhaps as heavy traffic as any roads in this country and I hope that those roads will not cease to be general purpose roads because, if they do, it will disturb greatly the life of my constituency, along the full length of which these roads run.
As the Member for the County of Huntingdon I cannot forbear from pointing out the irony of the friendly Debate we have had today—the nearest Debate to the 300th anniversary of the execution of Charles I. On this friendly occasion we should perhaps acknowledge the fact that we have been able to profit by the sacrifices made by both sides in

those far-off days and, indeed, have been able to profit also by their mistakes.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. York: I cannot say that my views of this Bill have undergone any modification in the course of our long discussion, and after another place has had an opportunity to amend and rectify the omissions which we have pointed out to the Minister, and which he has decided they should rectify, this Bill will become law and then the planners' paradise will start. These planners will get out their pens and, instead of having a few hundreds of acres of England with which to mess about, they will have the entire country from Land's End to John o' Groats on which to slash these extraordinary excoriates. That may be in the minds of some hon. Members a slightly exaggerated picture of what will happen, but let the House be reminded that it is a possibility within the Bill as it now stands, and I sincerely hope that it will not happen.
First, I am completely in agreement that what we require in this country for our main arterial ways are dual track roads, and I have some experience in my own native county of them. I believe that they are fully adequate to deal with all traffic problems of the modern age without forbidding the use of those roads to all and sundry. I am not convinced by the argument of the Government that in total they take up more land than special roads. I will not argue the case now, but taking it in total, the amount of land taken for these new roads will be more than would have been taken had we retained the old principle of the dual purpose road, utilising those sections of the old roads which were capable of improvement into the dual purpose type.
Another argument that has not convinced me is that there will be fewer accidents on special roads than on the double track roads. There is no proof of this so far as the intensive traffic conditions of this country are concerned, and it is not fair to compare the conditions here with conditions on the Continent where traffic is much lighter. What we shall get now, in effect, are race tracks on which traffic will be tempted to go faster than either the vehicles or drivers are capable of with safety. It is no good putting a 20-mile an hour limit on the back of a vehicle because, even on our


present main roads, where there is a straight stretch, we get the heaviest lorries travelling at 30–40 miles an hour even though they are plastered with such signs. It is encouraging vehicles to go faster than their technical make-up entitles them to go with safety, and in getting excessive speed on the roads we induce accidents.
Secondly, we shall get an almost impenetrable barrier to rural amenities where these roads run. One might almost call it an iron curtain were it not for the magnificent fly-overs, cross-overs, and so on. If it has been my custom in the past to take my evening pint at the next village to the one in which I live, and there happens to be a special road in between. From a practical point of view I shall be forced either to go double the distance to find one of these crossings, or else patronise another pub. That is one illustration of the way in which the ordinary people in this country will have their amenities curtailed so that these race tracks can be built.
Thirdly, disorganisation will be caused in the normal local traffic routes. Wherever there is one of these roads the normal traffic routes must be diverted. To that extent, there will be an increase in the amount of transport which is necessary to maintain normal communications in those areas which will suffer the misfortune of having special roads running through them.
Fourth, I am not satisfied by what I have heard from the Government that the real core of the traffic problem will be tackled first. One of our main difficulties with communications is that towns are so congested that traffic is held up. I should like to think that the first action of the Minister when he starts, not working out the plans, but doing the work, would be to construct by-passes around those towns. I might then be able to think somewhat better of the Bill; but I have seen sufficient of the activities of road authorities to realise that if a job is difficult, they shelve it and do the easy part first. We all know that the Great North Road has been a very bad example of arterial communication. Acres and acres of land have been acquired to improve those parts of it which run through rural areas, but how many by-passes are there on it between Edinburgh and London? The only ones I can think of, apart from the Barnet By-pass on the outskirts of London, are those around a

few villages which, although very good in their way, do not solve the hard core of the problem of traffic congestion.
I have, at any rate, one hope. While I prophesy nothing but ill of this Measure, while I think it will be decaying before we can divert the capital from our meagre resources to indulge in these extravagances, I hope that the first job to be tackled when the Ministry of Transport begins operating the Bill will be the provision of by-passes round towns and that the easier and less expensive part of the work will be left until after their completion. I cannot say that I wish the Bill well. What I can say is that I hope it will be very many years before it is implemented.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I should like to begin by apologising to hon. Members who have been closely connected with the passage of the Bill. Although I was a member of the Committee I was also, unfortunately, a member of the Committee which is considering the Iron and Steel Bill, and the call of duty in that other direction prevented my attendance. I have, however, read the reports of the Committee and I agree that it was conducted in a most reasonable and co-operative manner. The outcome is that we now have a Bill which is greatly improved since its first presentation to the House.
I certainly do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York). I had hoped that by the time this stage of the Bill was reached he would have repented, but we can see that his position is exactly the same as it was on Second Reading. I do not think he really believes all he has told us this afternoon.

Mr. York: The hon. Member is wrong.

Mr. Shepherd: The need to provide for increased motor traffic is something we cannot possibly ignore. Too long have we refrained from building new motorways and spent far too much money upon the maintenance of existing roads. The Bill, therefore, is a step in the right direction.
I wish I could share the hope—or the fear, in the case of my hon. Friend—that vast areas of the country will be slashed with motorways. That is the


last result which we may fear from the right hon. Gentleman, because all kinds of individuals will get him to see that the Bill never materialises. The Railway Executive, for example, whose traffic is languishing, would look very ill upon a proposal to provide still more facilities for motor transport. They will keep the right hon. Gentleman in his place.
The Minister is not really a fit and proper person to have charge of the Bill; he is not a fit and proper father for this child and does not want it to grow up into a strong, lusty adult. What the right hon. Gentleman will do, after a discreet interval has passed, is to wring its neck or, at the very least, to see that it is imprisoned in the tower of State monopoly. I have grave feelings that the right hon. Gentleman will have no inclination to see that the Bill becomes a reality. My only consolation is that within a very short time a Government of a different complexion and a Minister of a different name will be called upon to carry out what the Measures requires to be done.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Woods: We have heard in this Debate an almost remarkable sequence of appreciation and of recognition of the need for a Measure of this kind. I have great pleasure, therefore, in congratulating the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) upon being the sole representative of the old Conservatism, of the historic attitude that what is, is good enough. In spite of the revolutions which have taken place in transport, and the fact that the road system in many parts of the country is utterly inadequate and causes considerable expense as well as tragic loss of life, there is still at least one lone voice which is not appreciative of the Bill.
The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) seemed to be not only an appreciation of the Bill but an attempt to convey to the country the impression that if it is a good Bill it is due mainly to the fact that hon. Members opposite have put down so many Amendments to it that it has been made into a good Bill which can, therefore, be glorified. The fact is that a Bill of this nature should have been on the Statute Book 20 years ago. Our present-day experi-

ences and the tremendous cost of the roads which are contemplated, could have been obviated, many thousands of human lives saved and millions of pounds less expended by industry on transport costs.
Many hon. Members will have travelled on those Continental highways which were used exclusively for high speed traffic. One of the earliest of these was that between Florence and Pisa. It was obvious that such motorways were necessary to facilitate through transport, yet successive Governments which boasted of their super-patriotism, their concern for industry and for reducing economic costs, failed completely to put on the Statute Book a Measure of this kind to make such roadways possible. During the tragic slump our three million unemployed could have been used on such a project, instead of being condemned to idleness, and could have helped to increase the economic wealth of the country by making the roads which we are still contemplating even now and which the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) still fears may be delayed.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: One thing about this Bill is that it has not aroused any party controversy, and therefore I think it safe to assume that had it been introduced 20 years ago, it would not then have aroused party controversy. It is, therefore, rather unusual that we should hear the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Woods) so condemning activities of his party in that he wishes the Bill had been introduced 20 years ago. His party had every opportunity of introducing it then for his party were in office——

Mr. Alpass: But not in power.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: There was no controversy and they had every opportunity of introducing such a Bill if they so desired, but probably they did not think about it.
I did not expect to agree with anything which my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) said, but it came as somewhat of a shock to find that there was one thing he said which I should like to emphasise, particularly to the Minister. That is a danger which might arise if and when these roads are built. Very likely the right hon. Gentleman has traveled


on the German autobahnen in recent months. If so, he will have seen at all too frequent intervals, wreckage on the side of the road of small German Völkswagen. When I inquired about them, I found that usually accidents had occurred because these vehicles were normally built for a speed of about 30 miles an hour, but they had been driven at a speed up to the maximum to which they could be adjusted to go. Very often they were driven at 70 or 80 miles an hour and they had special adjustments inside them for that purpose. They were not constructed with that idea in mind and the result was that they could not hold the road, but went off causing considerable damage and loss of life and injury.
I suggest that when the time comes for classes of traffic to be considered, the Minister, in the light of traffic at the time and motor construction at the time, should consider whether or not it would be advisable to put a limit on the motor traffic which can use these roads, in addition to other kinds of traffic, in order to ensure that only such traffic shall use them as can benefit from them in safety and to the advantage of the community as a whole.

Mr. Sargood: Is it not a fact that many of the recent accidents in Germany to which the hon. Member has referred, are due to the defective surface of the roads as a result of hasty repair following bombing by Allied Air Forces?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It would be going somewhat far from the subject to answer that in detail, but the answer is in the negative. We ask whether or not the Government have the technical knowledge and ability to create a surface to these roads such as that of the autobahn which successfully stood up to the wear and tear and usage of the war.
I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon was going to raise a most important question, but he did not. It is the subsidiary question of the connection between these roads and traffic centres, the means of access from the special roads to centres of population and centres of traffic circulation. My hon. Friend dealt with by-passes round cities and traffic centres. That is important, but a road is of no use unless one can

get from somewhere to somewhere else by it. We want to ensure that, having saved a couple of hours on a long-distance journey by travelling along a special road, we do not waste a couple of hours owing to traffic congestion and slowing down of traffic on leaving a special road to go into an urban area. On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Government had that question in mind, but they had not produced any specific way of dealing with it. I hope that in the course of their planning, which is likely to take a considerable time to develop, they will give particular attention to this matter.
It has been said that it is unlikely that the terms of the Bill will be implemented and the roads constructed within the next decade. That is quite likely, but that is no objection to the passing of this Bill at the present time. When the plan was drawn up during the war for a policy of full employment, it was emphatically laid down, principally by the party now in Opposition, that during periods of full employment the Government should prepare schemes such as this scheme so as to have them ready and available to put into practice at a time when there might be a slump in employment. That is what we are doing this afternoon. We are preparing a scheme and enabling it to be ready and available to put into practice as soon as the anticipated slump in employment begins to take effect from the unhappy policies of the Government.
Existing pipes and wires occupy consideration in several Clauses of the Bill. I trust that in creating these roads, particularly when taking over existing roads and converting them into special roads, the Government will use every opportunity of diverting pipes and wires away from underneath the surface of the roads. Nothing is a greater hindrance to the efficient use of a road than having pipes and wires running under it requiring the attention of one statutory authority after another coming in succession and invariably in unco-ordinated connection, to dig up the road in order to chase the pipes and wires, year after year. Before the new surfaces are laid to these roads, I hope everything will be done to divert these pipes and wires away from the surface of the road itself.
There has been very little reference to the financial provisions of the Bill, but I


hope they will not exclude the practice, which I believe it is still open and available to statutory authorities and the Government of utilising the provisions of Section 13 of the Development Act, 1909, in the raising of money by charges on the Road Fund. That is a useful provision in case the Treasury should at any time decline to sanction the use of the money, because under this Bill the Minister has the whip hand. If the Minister desires to proceed with a road without recourse to the Treasury, he will have power to do so under the 1909 Act. I commend that alternative means to his attention.
My main complaint about the Bill is that it gives too wide and arbitrary powers to the Minister. It is a common failing with most Government legislation at present. It is certainly in keeping with what has been done in other Acts of Parliament but that does not make it a good provision. I sincerely hope that the Minister will find some way, in the interests of good legislation, of curtailing the excessive width of the powers which the Government are giving to the Minister under certain provisions of this Bill.
I wish to say a word about the general effect of the Measure when it has been passed and implemented. We in this country inaugurated the fashion in road usage many years ago. We were the forerunners and developers of road transport, but for many years we have lost the prestige and the advantage which we held, and have been outclassed in more modern means of road development and road user by many other countries. We have suffered from that, and are doing so particularly at present. Of recent years we have seen how the necessary development of road traffic on the production and design side has had to follow the out-of-date type of roads which we have had in this country. Our export market in motor vehicles has consequently suffered. We are still finding that the cars which we are necessarily having to manufacture in this country are small and fail to compare with other cars. I hope that if we can improve our road system sufficiently by virtue of this Bill it will also enable manufacturers, whether of motor cars or heavy vehicles, to conform more closely to the type of vehicle which is useful and valuable not only in this country but in other countries.

In no case is this more important than in agriculture.
As I said during the Second Reading Debate, notwithstanding the depredations on agricultural land which this Bill is bound to cause, and notwithstanding the inconvenience which is bound to be caused to individual farms as a result of the special roads being driven through the farms, nevertheless it will, on the whole, be of the greatest benefit to agriculture. That is because agriculture, more than any other industry, depends on an efficient and available road transport service. I believe that on the whole the Bill will do good. It is being introduced at a good time, and I look forward to its implementation by my party when we sit on the other side of the House.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Alpass: I desire to express my warm and sincere thanks to the Minister for having introduced an Amendment in Clause 3 which will allay the fears of, and give satisfaction to, a large number of my constituents. During the Committee stage I raised a point about the provision of alternative roads when highways were being stopped up because of these new roads. By the Amendment to which I refer the Minister has made that certain. I should like to thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents for having conceded that important point.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was interested in the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). When I first saw this Bill I had the greatest fears about its effects on agriculture. Having followed the proceedings in detail as carefully as I could, I still feel considerable apprehension as to the sort of damage that may be done to the type of transport necessary for agriculture, unless this Bill is carefully administered. It is one of those matters upon which it would be most rash either for those who wholeheartedly support the Measure or those who oppose it, to attempt to prophesy what the results of this Bill will be on transport of all types for supplying farms, taking produce away, etc., if these roads become a reality.
I do not think we can prophesy but the whole system of farming is changing so rapidly that I believe that the growth,


the speeding-up of mechanisation on British farms, which is essential, will be jeopardised unless the powers contained in this Bill are used by the Minister not only wisely, but after the closest possible consultation and contacts with all those engaged in the supply and production of agricultural produce. It is vital that any Minister who is handling this Measure should be in the closest possible contact with every branch of the agricultural industry. Unless he is, he may, quite unwittingly, and with the best will in the world, do irreparable damage. These matters cannot always be dealt with by protest meetings, objections and formal discussions.
Intimate knowledge of the effects on agriculture in each district and area through which these roads pass will be absolutely essential to the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry. I press him to give some sort of assurance that when this Bill becomes law, he will immediately set up a special department in the Ministry if he means to go ahead with this Bill —the sole duty of which will be to study the effects of this Measure on the agricultural industry. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take that step.
Although I agree in principle about the need for this Measure I feel that it is not nearly imaginative enough. Not a word has been said to lead us to believe that those in charge of planning these special roads yet appreciate that this Bill is, on the whole, a rather tinselly imitation of Continental and United States methods of dealing with the problem. Our problems here are different but only lip service has been paid to that consideration by those who have been handling this matter. The Continental and United States problem is entirely governed by the long distances which separate big centres. That is not our problem, which is how to get in and out of existing centres and to get into quick through ways to other centres, which are not at great distances, but the way to which is through highly congested areas.
The problem is fundamentally different. I have not seen or heard of one suggestion that it is possible to separate by three, four, five or six miles the up route from the down route. It is assumed that the two must be close, side by side. That is the sort of consideration which might

have been in the minds of some of those who have been dealing in this matter.
I would reinforce the plea which has been made—I am assuming that the Minister means to go ahead with the implementation of this Measure—that because this Measure is on the Statute Book, it will not mean that vital improvements to existing roads which are badly needed not only from the point of view of danger to life, but from every conceivable angle will not be undertaken. In spite of this Measure being on the Statute Book the Minister must push ahead with the improvement of the existing road communications. He has probably already heard of particular cases in my own constituency, in fact I sent him a letter on the subject. There is that vitally dangerous point. I feel perfectly certain that he will pay attention to it, and will not say—as there is shortly to be a big special road running from Bristol to So-and-so and So-and-so, and a tremendous divergence of traffic— "We really cannot be bothered with dangerous bridges and bends and so on. Wait for two years and see how the traffic is relieved as a result of the special road." That simply is not good enough. But unless he is very strong, I am afraid he will find that there will be a tendency to put off all the good work necessary until the great wedding day comes along, and the local authorities and everybody else can be invited to a great opening, and sweep up in hundreds of motor cars, and have a champagne luncheon, and be told what a wonderful thing has been done by the Socialist Government.
Like all Bills of this sort, we have to consider it almost in the enabling category, because it is experimental. It is bound to be experimental, and these experiments, cutting right across all sorts of interests and lives and activities in this country can be extraordinarily dangerous and must be handled by a Government with sympathy and understanding—as well as being bound up, unfortunately, in miles of red tape before a quarter of a mile of road is built. This Bill being experimental, it is advisable that it should be handled by a Government of good common sense and humanity, and I only pray that by the time it comes into effect we shall have such a Government.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I rise to offer one or two observations on the Third Reading of this Bill. I have spoken very often on it already, some may think almost too often. I hold a sort of middle of the road position upon it. I am less critical of the Bill than my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) but unlike the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) I do not see my way to heaven lying along a smoothly surfaced autobahn.
The Bill could make a useful contribution, but I doubt whether anything in the way of new roads is going to take place in the immediate future. It is a much better Bill now than it was when we started, I am sure that all sides of the House would agree on that. Some substantial concessions have been made. Concessions have been made to safeguard the interests of the agricultural industry, and no one has worked harder on those concessions than my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon. If it were not for the cogent way in which he has put his arguments, both upstairs and in this Chamber, those concessions would not be as satisfactory as they are. We have had concessions on the alternative route, on the question of compensation and on the affirmative Resolution. In their way they are all substantial points.
I wish to confine myself to three matters. The first point is the question of the planning of this Bill. Of course, this, in effect, is a planning Bill. No one is going to build a new motorway, however much anybody would like to do so. No one could conceive of starting one at this stage in the operation. But, as one of my hon. Friends has said, it is very desirable that the plans should be drawn up in advance so that if there should be a recession in unemployment and matters of that kind, those plans could be put into operation and capital resources devoted to that end. But it is also necessary for another reason. Until people know the type of road system to which they can look forward in this country, it is impossible for them to make their plans. I am not talking of the plans of local planning authorities. For example, a gentleman in business in Birmingham would wish to know whether it is worth while planning to build a factory down in South Wales. But he

cannot make his plans in that direction until he knows whether he is to look forward to a new motorway between those two centres, because the presence or absence of that particular form of transport is vital to his costing calculations. I, therefore, welcome this Measure as a necessary contribution to helping those people to make up their minds as to their future operations.
The second point I wish to mention has been raised by hon. Members upstairs and was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). That is the question of accidents, on which very little has been said. So far, we have talked of this Bill as if it referred only to large autobahnen running up and down through the countryside. One of the most important features of a special road is its entrance to a city; whether one obtains access to the centre of a city, not by an all-purpose road, but by some road along which pedestrians, perambulators, bicycles and motor cars and lorries are not all mixed up together, as they are at the present time. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, from the reports of committees studying this matter, that so long as there are these forms of traffic all mixed up together and moving in different, directions at different paces, so long will there be a very high accident rate in the entrance to the cities of this country. I would like to see an early attempt—an experimental attempt if necessary—to find what would be the result of introducing a special road in those circumstances. It would obviously be an existing road taken over as a special road at the entrance to one of the cities of this country.
We have discussed the economic side most of all in our Debates upon this Measure. I still think that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet realised what a dramatic effect the building of new motorways would have upon the transport costs of this country.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member is quite wrong.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It might reduce transport costs very considerably, but it is going to add to the headaches of the right hon. Gentleman in no inconsiderable measure. His representatives on the Railway Executive are complaining


bitterly of the drift of traffic from the rail to the road and certainly that is not going to make it any easier for him. We should welcome a Measure of this kind, and the building of these roads, because we think that each and every form of transport ought to make its maximum contribution to the transport of this country. We think it would be wrong to spend millions of pounds in building these vast new roads up and down the country and then tell people that they cannot travel more than 25 miles along them. We should consider that a silly way of approaching the matter and a great waste of public funds. I can see the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman in this connection, but I shall not pursue the discussion into that and other more controversial fields. So far as this Measure is concerned, it has had our general support throughout all stages. We believe we have made some contribution to improving it, and we wish the Bill well as it leaves this House.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure we are all very glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) present. His name has been mentioned many times in the course of our deliberations upstairs. I hope his ears did not burn when the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) found himself addressed as "Sir David Maxwell Fyfe" when he was called on many occasions to move an Amendment.
My right hon. Friend cannot complain at all about the general support that we have had, with one notable exception. from the Opposition and the support from hon. Members on this side of the House in connection with this Bill. It has indeed been a concerted Measure, and my right hon. Friend readily acknowledges the assistance and valuable aid he has received from hon. Members in all parts of the House. They have not been fractious in their criticisms, nor have they unduly stretched out the Debate. We have all united in trying to make this Bill the best Measure that we can. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Monmouth that it is a much better Bill now than when it first came here. Indeed, if our concentrated intelligences could not make it better, it would be a poor reflection on us.
There are several matters to which I will refer. The first concerns the timing of the work. That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), and the hon. Member for Monmouth. The latter said that he doubted whether work would be done in the immediate future. There need be no doubts about that. Work will not be done in the immediate future. What is taking place now and what will take place in the immediate future is the planning necessary before we can cut the first sod. It is that work which is now going ahead, and the timing must depend upon the allocation of men and materials made to this form of work. I noticed that more than one hon. Gentleman opposite said he expected to see the work go ahead under a Government of the party opposite. I do not know whether that means that they expect to see the onset of a slump during their lifetime and that the capital investment programme which this Government is maintaining at a very high level is expected to fall off. I do not think that they want to claim that. I think they had better leave it in the form that both sides expect that there will be a high level of capital investment for a long time to come.
I would say to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that, of course, special roads can take no more than their share from the other important trunk roads and the Class 1, 2 and 3 roads that exist in the country. If they were all built or taken over, they would still number only 1,000 miles out of our huge road system of 8,000 trunk miles and 160,000 classified miles of road. It must be clear to everybody that these roads cannot just pre-empt on every other type of activity in connection with the maintenance of the transport system.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: What I really had at the back of my mind was the point that when a special road comes to be built, it will be a new structure and will take more raw material and labour in proportion yard for yard, than would be the case in straightening out and making safe and more efficient an existing road. To that degree, therefore, for every hundred yards of special road that is built, is it not the case, if more material and labour are taken, that possibly 1½ miles of other road could be made right?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that point is proved. It does not necessarily follow that if a new road is built it uses more material and manpower and costs more than the straightening of a crooked way at present. It is a matter for opinion and judgment. I should not be positive about it in the way in which the hon. Gentleman was.
On the question of agriculture, despite the fact that the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) has appeared in the guise of Cassandra through the whole piece, he will acknowledge that, through his own efforts and through the readiness of my right hon. Friend to make certain that this important industry shall not be neglected, agriculture has in fact substantial safeguards. It is certainly the intention of my right hon. Friend to continue his present practice in relation to these matters—we have had plenty of experience of this before—and there are ample safeguards for everybody.
Finally, on the economics of the matter, the hon. Member for Monmouth referred to the antagonism of road and rail. He did not use the word "antagonism": I put it in his mouth. I do not accept that. It is one of the surest signs that my right hon. Friend does not take that attitude that he has introduced this Bill. We regard these two systems of transport as complementary. We do not feel that we can make the best transport for this country if we strangle one in order that the other may survive. It is precisely because transport will be run as a public service that we can afford to take that wide view. It is precisely because we have now got a system in which transport can be co-ordinated—that will take a period of time—that we can now go ahead with confidence knowing that the Special Roads Bill as it is now framed can make its contribution to our transport problems. My right hon. Friend is most appreciative of the words that have been said in this concluding Debate and I should also like to express my own appreciation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time. and passed.

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Barbados) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Dominica) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Grenada) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jamaica) Order. 1948, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that, on the ratification by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order intituled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 7th December, an Order may he made in the form of that Draft.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (St. Lucia) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (St. Vincent) Order, 1948, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 7th December.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that, on the ratification by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order intituled the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (Netherlands) Order, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 7th December, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Federation of Malaya) Order, 1949, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 18th January.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order, 1949, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 18th January."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Addresses to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — PURCHASE TAX (DRUGS AND MEDICINES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 6) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2720), dated 17th December, 1948, made by the Treasury under the Finance Act, 1948, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th December, 1948, be approved." —[Mr. Jay.]

Mr. Osbert Peake: Are we not to have any explanation of this order from the Economic Secretary?

7.20 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I shall be very glad to give an explanation if the right hon. Gentleman wants one. This order has two simple objectives. The first is to extend the exemption from Purchase Tax which certain drugs and medicines already enjoy, under the Finance Act of last summer, to include drugs or medicines described in any formula of what is known as a drug tariff by the Minister of Health for the National Health Service. The House will remember that last summer we exempted a whole class of drugs and medicine which were of established medical value and were listed in certain professional documents which were set out in the Act. They were defined in Part II of the Eighth Schedule, and we are now simply adding to that list certain additional drugs and medicines as described in any formula of any drug tariff determined by the Minister of Health for the National Health Service. This addition of exempt drugs has the support of the medical profession, and, incidentally, of the drug trade. Its practical effect is to add seven standard medicines to the

exempted list, and I think that probably everybody in the House will support it.
The second purpose of the order is simply to clear up a doubt which has arisen about the interpretation of Part II of the Eighth Schedule, which was approved by the House last summer. It was because of a re-interpretation which may be held to involve a new charge that an affirmative resolution is necessary. The point really is that Part II of the Eighth Schedule seeks, in effect, to exempt non-proprietary medicines and drugs from Purchase Tax, and, since proprietary medicines, in fact, always bear a trade mark, the intention of Part II was to effect that purpose by banning any drug or medicine with a trade mark from the exempted list; and that was done by paragraph 5 of Part II of the Schedule. At the same time, there was a provision in paragraph 3 (e) of the Schedule that containers or labels on the drugs or medicines might bear the name of the maker or seller and yet the drug or medicine would remain exempt from Purchase Tax.
The question then arose whether, if there was a firm which used its own name in the form of a trade mark, the goods would be exempt from Purchase Tax or not. There was an apparent inconsistency between these paragraphs The Customs and Excise gave an interpretation, which I am sure was in accordance with the intentions of the House last summer, to the effect that, if the name of the seller was used in the form of a trade mark, the medicine could not be exempt from Purchase Tax, because the whole purpose was that no goods marked with a trade mark should be so exempt. As a matter of fact, that decision was accepted by all the firms concerned except one, and the firm which was not willing to accept it maintains that it was within the law in continuing to use its name as a trade mark, and, at the same time, claiming the exemption from Purchase Tax. It is perfectly open to the firm to use its trade mark if it does not claim exemption from Purchase Tax.
The intention of this order is to put the matter beyond doubt and declare that no firm using its name as a trade mark can claim exemption. If we do not do that, we should clearly be unfair, both to all other makers of proprietary goods who do not happen to use their names, and, indeed, to the other firms who do


use their names but have agreed to accept the interpretation. For these reasons, I commend the order to the House.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I am much obliged for the extremely clear explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given of this order. During the Debates on the Finance Bill, we took the view, and we still adhere to it, that all medicines, including those of a proprietary and branded character, should be exempt from Purchase Tax. This order, it appears, is designed to secure that the intention of the provision in the Finance Act of last year is effectively carried out. It would appear that, where a trade mark appears on a bottle of medicine, that medicine, under the law —although we do not like the law—is subject to Purchase Tax, and that there is, at any rate, one firm, at least, in putting its trade mark upon a bottle of medicine puts its name in such a way as to make it appear that the trade mark is on the bottle. That, I understand, is the position which has arisen, and, in these circumstances, it seems to us to be a reasonable procedure to ask the House to pass this order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT FACILITIES, NORTH LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I wish to bring the attention of the House back from the rather fascinating atmosphere of the future which we have been discussing this afternoon in connection with the Special Roads Bill, to the rather unpleasant reality of certain present transport facilities. Necessary and important as is the Bill which has just received its Third Reading, I regret to say that my constituents and those of other hon. Members who represent districts to which I shall refer are rather loth to accept this future planning of road transport as a substitute for the urgent needs with which they are faced every day.
I wish to raise this evening the question of travel facilities in North London west

of the River Lea. This area roughly represents the district which covers Tottenham, Edmonton, Enfield and out as far as Cheshunt, and touches such areas as Southgate, Wood Green, Stoke Newington and Hornsey. The neighbouring areas of Barnet and so forth are also affected. I am tonight concerned with the facilities from Tottenham and Edmonton out as far as Enfield. The population of the whole area is something under 700,000, and of Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield nearly 400,000. A very large number of those 400,000 residents travel to and from their work daily, and, in a great number of cases, come up to the commercial areas of the East, Central or West End districts of London.
The facilities in this area have been extremely poor for a very long time past, and there is a long history of agitation for improvement. It was not until 1944 that the local authorities in the district got together and formed what they called the North London Conference. In association, on occasions, with various ratepayers' associations, they have been engaged in drawing up what they consider useful suggestions, which they submitted to the railway companies, before they were nationalised, to the London Passenger Transport Board and to the Minister himself. It was only in the last resort that this North London Conference and myself decided to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. Recently, we held a meeting with the Chairman of the London Transport Executive and representatives of the British Railways Executive, in the hope of obtaining some promise or hope of improvement in the near future. Unfortunately, these meetings gave us no such satisfaction, and that is the reason why I am raising this matter now.
The existing facilities are similar to those of 50 years ago. The only railways which serve this area—and they use steam trains—are the Liverpool Street to Cambridge line, which passes through Clapton, Tottenham, Edmonton, Ponders End, Brimsdown and Enfield Lock; the Liverpool Street to Enfield Town line, which goes through Seven Sisters, Silver Street and Lower Edmonton, and the Kings Cross to Hertford line, which passes through the centre of Enfield itself. The present facilities are really worse than those which existed in the latter part of


the last century because the loop line from Lower Edmonton to Cheshunt Junction was closed in 1909. That line served the then growing area of Edmonton and Enfield. Although it has been closed down for the last 40 years, it has been kept in repair and has been used in emergency, mainly for goods traffic. It would be quite practicable to put that line into operation again.
Any hon. Member who has experienced travelling from Liverpool Street to Enfield will have had a unique experience. He will have travelled in old railway carriages similar to those used on the old Great Eastern line, or, if he travelled from Kings Cross, similar to those used on the old Great Northern line 50 years ago or more. The steam trains in use are all old stock, and the stations are all, without exception, extremely dilapidated. The line passes through a poorly developed district, from the railway point of view, inasmuch as there is a great number of level crossings which constitute, of course, a great inconvenience to the industry of the area. It may be interesting, historically, to travel on this line, because, in a way, it is like paying a visit to a railway museum, but it is presently nauseating. I am not sure that this old-fashioned, antiquated line should not be handed over to Arthur Rank for use in making period films.
The only direct improvement which has taken place anywhere near this area has been the building of the extension of the Piccadilly tube from Finsbury Park to Cockfosters. The building of that extension, in the view of the people who live in my constituency, and, I am sure, in the constituencies of other hon. Members in the neighbourhood, is that it was a mistake to extend that tube away from a populated district out into the wild country where the only gain was a series of new developments and very large profits made out of property deals. The nearest station to Enfield on the Piccadilly line is Oakwood which is situated some two and a half miles from Enfield Town itself, and some four or five miles from the extreme east of Enfield. There is a bus connection, but to travel by the Piccadilly line to Oakwood means being landed in Southgate outside of Enfield and having to queue prior to completing the journey by bus. The extension of the Piccadilly line from Finsbury Park through part of Tottenham, Wood Green and Southgate

to Cockfosters, created a series of bottlenecks where interchanges take place between the tube and the buses, mainly trolley buses. The main bottlenecks are at Finsbury Park itself, Manor House. Turnpike Lane and Wood Green.
At all these places during the rush hours, both in the morning and at night, there is a large interchange from trolley-bus to tube, or vice versa. This is particularly marked during the evening peak hour period when there are long queues of people waiting in unpleasant conditions for the buses or trolley-buses. The time spent queueing at these points each day by very large numbers of people in this area is considerable. The main trouble is that there is no rapid and convenient means of travel from this area to Central and West London. One has either to go by the old fashioned, unmodernised steam trains to the east of London, or travel by trolley-bus or bus to the Piccadilly tube and interchange.
I want to ask the Minister tonight what is being done to solve this very serious problem. To get to Edmonton from anywhere in Central London takes some 65 minutes, whichever way one travels. To travel to Enfield by road or by tube and road takes a minimum of about one and a quarter hours, the distance being only some 15 miles. That shows how inadequate are the facilities.
There are three possibilities of improving the travelling facilities to this area. First, there is the short-term one of improving road travel. That would be extremely difficult to do because the roads in this area are already very congested. We know the difficulties confronting London Transport in putting more buses on the road. Even if more buses and trolley-buses were put into service, I doubt whether the facilities would he much improved owing to the congested roads and the long queues which are a sequence of this state of affairs. Secondly, there is what I might call the medium-term solution, which is the electrification of the railway lines from Liverpool Street to Cambridge and from Liverpool Street to Enfield Town; the electrification of the loop line to which I have already referred, and which is known as the Churchbury line, which runs from Lower Edmonton to Cheshunt Junction, and which could quickly be brought into use again, and the electrification of the Kings Cross to Enfield Town line and the


modernisation, apart from electrification, of all three of those lines.
In my view, electrification is the only practical solution to the problem of travel facilities in this district, because only thereby could the people be attracted back on to the railways. These railway lines are so antiquated, and their services so unreliable that the greater proportion of the people prefer to use the buses and trolley-buses, not because travel is quicker—indeed it is far slower—or because it is more comfortable—which it is not—but because there is a serious discrepancy between the fares charged on the buses and those charged on the railways. I shall deal with that point a little later.
The North London Conference to which I have referred held a meeting with Lord Latham a few weeks ago, and at this meeting Lord Latham informed us that there had been a working party appointed presumably by the British Transport Commission, and on which British Railways and London Transport were I assume represented. This working party was appointed for the purpose of examining the travel facilities in the whole of the London area. At this meeting Lord Latham was pressed to give some information on the plans for meeting the problem in the North London area, and he said that it was accepted that railway transport facilities in Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield required improvement. The statement that the railway facilities there required improvement was a really beautiful masterpiece of understatement. Lord Latham continued by stating that there were proposals to meet the problems in this area. The need for adequate access both from the city and the West End had not been overlooked. The plan included proposals which, if accepted, would solve the rail traffic problem in North London, not only as it exists at present but for many years to come. It was envisaged that these works would fall into the group of works of first priority, although it was not possible at that stage to determine a priority of works within that group.
I want the Minister to give an assurance that the works which are proposed by the working party will include the improvement of facilities in this area, and will be given first priority within the group of first priorities. I ask him for

that assurance because this area merits first priority. It merits first priority because nothing has been done, despite continuous agitation for the last 50 years at least. During those 50 years there have been considerable developments in the area, and there is now considerable house building and commercial building in progress. Take, for instance, the area quite close to Manor House where there is a very large development of flats by the London County Council, and where the position is becoming worse all the time.
The second reason I wish to put forward for granting first priority to this area is the fact that it is an industrial, commercial and developing area where there is considerable waste in view of the time that is spent in travelling and the ill-health which is experienced as a result. In addition, this area is very heavily engaged in essential production, both for home consumption and for the export drive. My third reason is that these railways have involved a very heavy investment. They are only partially used at present, and if further money were now spent on electrification the capital investment would bring in a satisfactory return in the form of increased travel and greater comfort of the people travelling daily in this area. The railways are not used in that area because the fares are far too high.
The railways will not attract people as long as they remain in that antiquated state. They would attract more people if they were electrified, but they would never run to their full capacity unless the fares were reduced, not to the same level as road fares but at least comparable to them. Take, for instance, the lines between Liverpool Street and Enfield Town, and Liverpool Street and Ponders End. The rail fares at present are roughly double those paid by people who go partly by tube and partly by road. If the difference is between 1s. and 1s. 11d. a 1ay, or 11d. and 1s. 10d. a day—and such is the comparison between the fares—people will obviously prefer to travel by trolley buses and so on, despite the discomfort.
I have raised this matter tonight because I want an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that this area will now receive the facilities it deserves, that the people living in the area will


receive some consideration and that something will be done to make up to them for the past neglect of this area, which has received no consideration since the railway boom. In other areas of London there has been considerable development. There has been the enterprising electrification of the Southern Railway. The tubes have been extended in different directions, but no tube has been built to serve directly this North London area.
I conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary three questions, in reply to which I hope he will give me some satisfaction so that I can take back some words of hope to my constituents. In the first place, will the Minister tell us the plans which have been drawn up by this working party, inasmuch as they are relevant to this area? Is there any reason why the plans, which are presumably now being discussed by the Transport Commission prior to their discussion by the Ministry of Transport, cannot be published so that the people in the area of Tottenham, Edmonton, Wood Green and Enfield can be given the opportunity of passing their opinion on these plans instead of being presented with an accomplished fact?
Secondly, will the Minister give an assurance that in considering the development plans, absolute priority will be given to this area and that the lesser needs of any other area will not receive priority? People suffering from the inadequate facilities in this neighbourhood are convinced, rightly or wrongly, that developments are now under consideration in other areas which, in their view, do not deserve prior consideration. For instance, I know that the line out to Southend is extremely bad, but for various reasons I do not consider the conditions there are as bad as they are on the lines to which I have referred. However, there is a report that this line is next on the list, or is high up on the list for electrification and will receive prior consideration to the lines in which I am interested.
There has also been drawn to my attention a newspaper report about sinkings in connection with experiments concerning the extension of the tube southwards through Camberwell. If there is any truth in that report, it would certainly cause grave concern to my constituents in view of the fact that there has been far more

development in South London in recent years than there has been in North London. Therefore, would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether electrification is planned for those lines, and if so whether they will receive prior consideration within the group of priorities?
The next question is that which I have only touched on and which, perhaps, is not quite so relevant, as the time available in an Adjournment Debate is limited. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is any possibility of urgent consideration being given to the question of high fares on the suburban railways and their disparity with road fares? Will he also say whether, even before a decision is arrived at on fares and charges schemes. as required under the Transport Act some experiment can be made in reducing suburban railway fares for regular daily travellers in order that the congestion on the roads can be relieved by attracting these people back to the railways? In a case where there are adequate railway facilities which are insufficiently used, cannot something be done to adjust fares so as to equalise the spread between road and railway traffic?
In conclusion, the people in these areas are exasperated by the failure of private enterprise in the past to provide adequate facilities for railway and other travel through North London, to Edmonton and Enfield. They are even more exasperated by the failure of the Transport Commission or the Minister to give any indication when there will be any hope of these facilities being improved. They were willing to put up with the bad conditions during the war, but now that peace is with us, although they do not expect immediate improvements, they do expect some indication that improvements will come in the near future. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, in answering the representations I have made on behalf of my constituents, to give some indication of the plans and to hold out some hope that these plans are being considered in the way which they merit.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: This is one occasion on which it is possible to find complete agreement with an hon. Member opposite. I am grateful


to the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) not only for his excellent speech tonight, but for bringing about that conference which we had upstairs with Lord Latham. On that occasion we discussed this problem with Lord Latham but at the end of the discussion there was a look in his eye which suggested that he would "take it into consideration." We all know that look when we see it in the Minister's eye and Lord Latham gave me the same impression. I do not think he really appreciated how acute is this problem.
As the representative of Wood Green and Southgate, I would agree that the problem of my constituents is not as aggravated as that of Enfield, but the two boroughs are of course affected. It is depressing enough to arrive by any method at Liverpool Street, especially by one of these antiquated ghost trains, but the excessive charge for tickets has added too much to the burden at the beginning of the day, and too much to the burden of going home. The boroughs of North London have great character; they are all individual in their way. It is a very good thing that people should live there and work in the City. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary smiles. We are now discussing "les miserables" and the smile of the Parliamentary Secretary, which we all like so much, should be removed while we are discussing "les miserables" of North London. The Minister does not know what is going on under the Socialist regime at the present time, in these years of Socialist misrule through which we are passing.
The hon. Member for Enfield criticised, I think, the extension of the tube to Cockfosters, saying that there had not been very much building there. He said there had been more speculation than building. Cockfosters has now been brought into the new Southgate constituency. It will almost certainly be represented by a Conservative at the next election and I predict a building boom as a result. The houses which the Minister will not now permit to be built will go up like mushrooms and the tube extension will prove to have been justified.
The third question which the hon. Member for Enfield asked the Minister was whether he could adjust the disparity

between road fares and rail fares. That question was answered in the previous Debate today. The Minister may not think he answered it, but he did. We were discussing the building of new roads and how they might compete with the railways, and with complete assurance the Minister said that the competition between them does not matter because "under national ownership we can adjust these things." Here is the same problem. The Government now own an antiquated ghost railway and they also own, or the Transport Commission owns, all other forms of transport involved. Now it is for the all-powerful Government to look into this policy and for the Ministry of Transport to obtain immediate plans for electrification. What does it matter what it would cost? It does not matter in any other nationalised industry, so why pick on North London for the exception? For once there is a good reason for expenditure because the people of North London have been badly treated in the past.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the hardship imposed upon the travelling public of North London. Perhaps he may get into trouble if I call him "my hon. Friend," but as he is a neighbour and a man of good sense, I shall call him my hon. Friend and be glad to do so, especially on this one occasion. The hardship imposed on the travelling public of North London is something which I think the Minister should inspect personally. He should travel at crowded times early in the morning from Enfield to Liverpool Street and at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock at night he should take the trip back again. If he does, he will learn something about transport which may cause him to wonder.
In conclusion, I repeat that although this may be a costly concern, it is nevertheless one to which the Ministry should give serious thought. They should consider the wear and tear of people who have to set out on these long journeys in all weathers to carry out their essential work. If anything can be done to make the journey more comfortable, more human, more decent, it should be done. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will earn our appreciation if he will give some real thought to this problem so that we may all join in smiling with him.

.57 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: Perhaps I may support the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) as one of the sufferers from this situation which has been described so adequately by him and partly described by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). When the hon. Member for Wood Green talks about the sufferings of the people of North London under the Socialist regime I would remind him that this is one of the most horrible legacies which this Government have taken over from the bad old days of private enterprise. Indeed, the situation would never have arisen, and the travelling problem of Tottenham, Edmonton and Eastern Enfield would not be as it is today, if it had not been for the costly blunder, or the costly racket—as some people believe it was—of deliberately extending the Finsbury Park-Piccadilly tube not into the densely packed areas along the main road of Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield but into what the hon. Member described as the wilds of Cockfosters and Oakwood where, in fact, there was at that time hardly a cottage, never mind a house.
As my hon. Friend has said, one travels to Oakwood or Cockfosters, is disgorged into the wilds and then has to wait for a bus coming from Potters Bar so as to take a 4d. bus ride into Enfield. It was a very unfortunate situation for visitors until the name was changed to Oakwood, because when they arrived at a terminal station in North London from the north and tried to find their way to Enfield they might be unfortunate enough to get on to a tube train to Enfield West only to find that they were in the heart of the country. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why this extension was made, because, in fact, it was a crime against the North London community. I have heard some quite unsavoury stories about why it was done—land rackets, and so on.
However, certainly, a very large extension of the Piccadilly Tube line, which had been advocated for many years by the people and authorities of North London, was granted and was built, and, for whatever reason, was diverted whither it was not wanted at all. Obviously, populations are beginning to grow round about the stations on the line, but the fact remains that through the overcrowded areas there is no additional transport, although a mile and a half or two miles to the

west of them there is a very fine tube line. As it is, people are disgorged at various stations who queue up for the buses to travel west. It is a very serious situation, and the action that took the Piccadilly extension where it is, can hardly be described as anything less than a crime against the people of North London. I should not like to repeat some of the stories I have heard of why it was done. If the Minister could tell us we should be much obliged.
The fact remains that the situation along that line is one which existed in the 'twenties, and which caused tremendous agitation, and gave rise to the development of the Piccadilly Tube; but the problem is still there, and I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Wood Green, that rather than look at a map of the tube lines to see how the red lines are distributed through North London, the Minister should take the trouble to travel from Liverpool Street to Enfield. If he has his gas mask still, I would advise him to take it with him. Then after making that journey he should sit comfortably in a Piccadilly Tube train which will take him into the lovely, isolated countryside by Oakwood or Cockfosters. Then he will understand the history of the thing and see the contrast between these two areas. I am sure that when he has seen that contrast, he will look very carefully into the problem.
We all know the difficulties of doing something all at once. The hon. Member for Wood Green, like his hon. Friends, would like us to clear up the muddle of pre-war management in a year or two. That cannot be done, but I think the Minister should give very serious thought to what was said by my hon. Friend to see what can be done to relieve this problem immediately. I hope he will give us an assurance that nothing will be done in the future in regard to the development of London transport resembling what was done in the case of this Piccadilly Tube extension, before we had the advantages of nationalised control.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Irving: I think that hon. Members representing North London constituencies and the residents of North London will be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies)


for having raised this question. It is not a new one; it has been with us for a long time; but it has been aggravated since the end of the war by the return of hundreds of thousands of the population to that area. I am afraid that there is no immediate prospect of relief except by trolley buses or petrol buses. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) that some mistake was made in the development of the Piccadilly line. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) has said that he will be the Member for Southgate after the next General Election. I shall be the Member for Wood Green. The argument about the development of Cockfosters is not a sound one, because the Abercrombie Plan for Greater London provides that there shall not be development in that area, so that there will be transport facilities without additional population. On the other hand, the population of Tottenham is increasing. It has increased each year since the war by thousands, and that increase will go on, until we can transfer some of our surplus population to new towns.

Mr. Baxter: If Wood Green goes Socialist after the next General Election, and if Enfield votes Socialist again, the refugees are bound to come to settle in Cockfosters, even if they have to double up in houses.

Mr. Irving: It will be fine for the people of Edmonton and Tottenham if they can send some of their population there and make it a new town. The real difficulty is the tube extension from Manor House. No other possible extension could help very much the Tottenham population. It is true that the electrification of the line from Enfield to Liverpool St. would help considerably, but I think that there is a disadvantage, in that people do not like climbing steps, and at nearly every station from Enfield to Liverpool St. one has to climb 20 or 30 steps to reach the platform, and that fact would delay the use of the electrified line—although, of course, if there were no alternative it would be accepted.
From Tottenham's point of view I think the only possible solution would be an extension from Manor House to, say, Waltham Cross. I understand that there is an engineering difficulty there. In the rush hours the Piccadilly line runs a train

a minute, which is as much as one can expect, and any additional burden would break down the present arrangements. The real need is for a new tube from Leicester Square to Manor House to take the additional traffic. The reason, I understand, that the tube was not extended from Manor House to Tottenham was that the population was expected to develop westwards, and there was a great expanse of the Lea Valley which could not be built on at all. Therefore, it seems to me that it will be a long time before we can get the best developments for the people of Tottenham.
Meanwhile, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the only possible way of giving immediate relief is for additional trolley buses to run from Ponders End and Edmonton and Manor House through Tottenham—or additional petrol buses. It may be said that there are not sufficient trolley or petrol buses, but I think that the congestion could be considerably reduced if trolley or petrol buses were turned round at Manor House instead of going to the terminus. If the trolley buses were turned round at Manor House, where there are facilities for turning buses, it would relieve considerably the congestion caused by the thousands of people coming out of the tube at Manor House. There is another small point. The No. 76 bus service should be extended. Unfortunately, it stops at High Cross. It would help if arrangements could be made for the No. 76 buses to run through Edmonton.
I know that there are capital expenditure difficulties in this problem, but it seems to me that not sufficient pressure is being brought to bear by the Minister of Transport on the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to getting capital expenditure for giving better transport facilities for the people of North London.

8.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I think everyone will agree that this has been an interesting Debate, and that we are very much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) for the way in which he put his case. I thought it was an example of studied moderation that was more


likely to convince than some of the passionate rhetoric we hear now and again. I thought he summed up the position admirably. Indeed, he has saved me a great deal of trouble by so doing, because I shall, as it were, merely make marginal comments on some of his remarks. He rightly said that this matter has a very long history. I am afraid I do not know the reason why Cockfosters and the open country was chosen as the destination for this particular North London Tube.

Mr. J. Hynd: My hon. Friend can guess.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend says I can guess. If I did so, I should probably be right. But the conclusion that I think it is fair to state is that whatever the merits of that particular line, whatever its potential merits, there is no doubt that the existing needs of the people already resident in that part of North London were neglected. That conclusion must follow from the examination of the situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield stated, the facilities today are the same, broadly, as they were 50 years ago with the exception of a branch line, called Churchbury which was closed down in 1909. This has a familiar ring for me. It is the old story that we hear about private lines in competition with buses and trolley buses. This branch line had to close down, because it could not compete with the fares charged by the tramways 40 years ago.
My hon. Friend suggested, and then dismissed as a short-term remedy, the provision of more buses. He was probably right when he said that that was a mere palliative which would not greatly help. For one thing it would not deal with the length of time to get into the West End or into the City from that particular area. One of the problems here, which does not affect the length of waiting time to get on a trolley bus, is the fact that once a passenger gets on to a trolley bus it takes a long time to get into London. Putting on more buses will not help that aspect of the matter, because the congestion of the traffic, as my hon. Friend said, would not reduce the time taken by people to get in from Enfield, Tottenham and other areas into central London.
I thought it right to have an examination made of the waiting time in queues,

because if the people in that part of London were suffering from this disability it was not right that they should be asked to suffer a greater disability in waiting time than any other part of London. I have been handed some figures which show that, in point of fact, the waiting time of queues in this area is no greater and no less than that in any other part of London. On the inward journey from Enfield and Winchmore Hill trolley bus waits do not exceed more than eight minutes. That is an average time. On the services outwards to Manor House, the waits do not exceed five minutes as the average time. I have a number of figures here, but I will not go into them in detail. However, I can say to my hon. Friends who have raised this point——

Mr. Irving: Could my hon. Friend say what hour of the day those times represent?

Mr. Callaghan: That is an average time over a long period every day covering a substantial period. London Transport Executive have travelling inspectors whose job it is to check up on these matters. This is no average time for two isolated days, but is an average over a very long period.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether he has the figures for Manor House at the peak hours say, from 5.15 to 6.45?

Mr. Callaghan: No. The figure I have given to the House is the average waiting time, not the waiting time at peak hours.

Mr. Irving: It is no use.

Mr. Callaghan: It may be no use to my hon. Friend, but it is certainly of use to me and to the House, because it enables me to make an average comparison between the waiting time in that area and in other parts of London. If we are going to take a peak hour as an average, my hon. Friend might care to go and see what it is like at Millbank or Oxford Street, and see how long he has to wait for a bus to take him home, because that is just as good a statistic as one can fairly take as to the average waiting time. I have given a figure to the House which in my view shows that the waiting time does not vary upwards or downwards in that area over other areas. As I said,


however, that is only a partial aid. What is really wanted is to expedite the journey, and as my hon. Friend said that cannot be done by putting on more trolley buses.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves this point, will he check up whether it is not a fact that on occasions at the peak hour people at the Manor House have to wait twenty minutes? I have experience of Manor House and of Turnpike Lane. During the day one may wait a minute or two at the most, but at the peak hours, when most people travel, the wait is considerable.

Mr. Callaghan: I will get those figures if they are any help to the hon. Member. There is no difficulty in getting them. But if he examines them he will find in comparison with figures for other areas that the waiting time at the peak hours is no greater and no less than it is in other parts of London, so that they will not help him in his case. The point I am raising at the moment is the time people have to wait before they get into a vehicle, which shows that there is no particular hardship imposed on the people here which is not suffered by everyone who in these days has to wait in a queue.
Perhaps I ought to explain a point in connection with the trolley bus services in London generally. This area is not alone in the way in which it suffers in this connection. As far as trolley buses and buses are concerned London Transport have been in singular difficulties. During the war Chiswick Garage was used for an aircraft works, which, in a way, prevented them from maintaining their fleet of buses in the way they would like to have done. Since the war they have, of course, been curtailed in their programme because of the excellent export value of British buses. British buses can be sold anywhere in the world and we have been able to sell them anywhere in the world with the consequence that we have gone short at home.

Mr. Braddock: Keep more buses and less motor cars.

Mr. Callaghan: If my hon. Friend challenges me on that point, let me put this consideration before him. There is no use having buses at home and travelling to work in comfort if when a worker gets there there are no materials to work

at in the factory because no buses have been exported. That shows the wisdom of the Government in planning exports and in deciding how far we can afford to send buses abroad or to keep them at home, because we have to preserve a delicate balance between the essential needs of the travelling public on the one hand and the need for exports in order to pay for raw materials and food on the other. That is the dilemma with which the Government have been concerned throughout their whole term of office.
London Transport have, as I think is well known to the House hired 550 coaches in order to relieve congestion and those coaches have made a material contribution. They also expect this year, because of the lift in production of motor buses, to get many more buses than they got last year. The figure may well nearly be double what they got last year. I must enter this proviso, that that does not mean that they can immediately introduce a large number of new services, because there are so many over-age buses in London that many of the new buses will have to be used in order to replace veterans which are getting very tired. It is time some of them had a rest, and that means that London Transport in this year probably will be only able to give a better service in the sense of having better buses than some of the veterans, which will start to leave the roads during the next 12 months. I wanted to say that about the buses and trolley-buses because the point has been raised although, as my hon. Friend recognised, it will not greatly ease the problem so far as Enfield is concerned.
The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Irving) asked not only for additional trolley buses but that they should be turned round at Manor House. This is a technical consideration in which I am not well versed but I am told that if buses are turned round at Manor House, the people living beyond will not feel very pleased about it because they will have to get off at Manor House instead of going on.

Mr. Irving: They can go on to the Underground there.

Mr. Callaghan: I am bound to say that the technical and commercial people who have gone into this are not satisfied


that by helping the people at Manor House in this way they would not do an injury to those living beyond, and I cannot pronounce on that technical point tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield asked me three questions. He asked what are the plans of the working party, and can they be published. I ought to explain that this working party arose out of the Inglis Report. After the County of London Plan had been heard, my right hon. Friend asked the Inglis Committee to report on the effects of this plan on transport in London. They produced a report which my right hon. Friend submitted to the British Transport Commission as soon as they were set up. They have been to work speedily and, within 12 months of getting on their harness, their working party which has been considering the Inglis London Railway Plan is now ready to report. When my hon. Friend met Lord Latham a month ago, he was told that the working party was nearing the completion of its work. I understand that it has completed its work and that the British Transport Commission will be ready within a few days to send to the Minister their comments on these proposals. I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider sympathetically the suggestion of my hon. Friend that they should be published if they are in a suitable form. There is nothing to hide, and the greater the number of minds given to this, the better.
Then he asked for an assurance that there will be absolute priority given to this area. He said that Southend was not so bad and that he had heard there would be borings for a Camberwell Tube, I do not think my hon. Friend really expects me to give him an assurance of absolute priority to this area. I do not know whether I ought to declare my interest, but I live in South-East London——

Mr. Ernest Davies: I thought as much.

Mr. Callaghan: We are under no doubt whatever in that area about the inadequacy of parts of our travelling system. I do not need to take a trip to North London to see what conditions are like. Sometimes I come up before 8 o'clock in the morning on a workman's ticket, I cannot step into the carriage without standing

on somebody else's toes the whole way. There is no doubt that, taking London as a whole, during the last few years it has outstripped its traffic capacity. I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance in advance of seeing the report and its recommendations that absolute priority will be given to any one area. There are a number of areas that are all pretty bad in London at the present time.
On the question of fares, my hon. Friend asked that railway fares should be made comparable with road fares. A review of fares is precisely the intention of Section 76 of the Transport Act. The British Transport Commission are charged with the responsibility of reviewing all fares and of making new proposals to the Transport Tribunal. They will then argue the matter out, it will be publicly considered, and decisions will be given. That will not be a short process and it would not be proper to ask the British Transport Commission to take one small line in isolation and try to deal with it in advance of the big job they have to do. If I may adapt a phrase it seems to me better to let sleeping anomalies lie, because if we dealt with this matter we would cause repercussions and anomalies to areas everywhere throughout London.
There is no doubt that a tube is the right solution in the long run, but at the present cost of building it amounts to about £1,500,000 per mile of tube, and if there are to be 10 to 15 miles of tube, it will be seen what a major capital investment project this would be. There are not many projects of that order throughout the whole of the industrial field in Britain today, and to ask that that should be given absolute priority is something upon which I could not give an answer tonight. It may well be that electrification of the line, including the loop, might be a part of the long-term solution, but that is not a cheap or easy matter. Although the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) says with gay insouciance that it does not matter if the industry makes a loss, the Act says that the industry should try to make a profit, and I do not notice any tendency on the part of the hon. Gentleman's party to say it does not matter about a loss provided they are giving service to the public; that is not the tenor of the headlines in the newspapers the day afterwards.
In conclusion, many of us who travel over these lines in London realise what a terrific problem London transport has become. Sometimes people ask, "Why should we stagger hours?" It is perfectly reasonable for them to wonder why they should fit themselves into the transport system rather than the transport system accommodate itself to their requirements. The plain truth, as I see it, is that in many parts of London the transport system cannot be made to fit people's requirements. Capital investment of the order of scores of millions of pounds will need to be undertaken if they are all to travel in reasonable comfort. As a result of the developments in the huge population in this great metropolis over the last few years, people's

travel habits must of necessity be fitted into the capacity of the existing transport system.
I know only too well the feelings of people who travel in these carriages from the suburbs to London, arriving at their destination battered and weary before starting their day's work. This major problem is only one of many which confronts the Government and it must, I fear, be a question of fitting the solution of this one into the solution of the many others, all of equal importance, with which the Government are now attempting to deal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Eight o'Clock.